>Those people that go "REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I WANT TO BE NEUTRAL! WHY DOESN'T THIS GAME ALLOW ME TO BE NEUTRAL!!?!?!? REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" in an RPG
Is there anything more pathetic?
And to all you neutralfags, please post some compelling choices (or non-choices) a neutral character could make.
I like when a game forces you to make a decision like Good and Bad with no middle ground, as long as it's done right.
However, Mass Effect is not the game for big good guy or bad guy decisions because at the end you're still trying to stop the Rippers on a linear narrative.
Therefore, there's nothing wrong with going Neutral in that.
SMT also gives good options for Law, Neutral AND Chaos.
>>332323532
>rippers
People (neutralfags specifically) are stupid
Neutral endings are mostly cop outs or ways to keep you playing by teasing better endings
How come neutralfags don't understand that to be neutral would mean they were completely passive aka NOT A VIDEO GAME CHARACTER
>>332323184
>Uses Mass Effect image to complain about a lack of neutral options
>One of the final choices in ME3 is literally the most middle ground ending ever "merge organic life with technology to live together"
I don't like the 3-tier morality system. I prefer the old dnd system with 9 tiers of morality (chaotic, lawful, neutral, evil, good, neutral).
>>332324167
D&D alignment makes zero sense outside D&D where it's defined but still retarded
>>332324275
This. Dumb shit designed for game mechanics and not actually relevant
>>332323184
Is there a game that actually manages to successfully motivate you to want to go evil, as opposed to picking a good path? Like, instead of just being evil because "LOL, I'M SUCH A REBEL, FUCK THE AUTHORITIES XDDDD" or "I like to be edgy", there's actual decent justification behind it?
Basically, your sides are clear cut, but at the same time, there's no "same path" to follow whether good or bad, and either both sides are in a morally gray field where there's no one really "good" or "bad" to choose, depending on your view, or the good and bad sides are defined as good and evil ideologies, but you actually get to fully interact with a good-bad system where the bad guys aren't just some obscure cult or the good guys aren't just some Disney-tier rebels, but instead there's two fully fleshed-out factions and you're fighting an actual war.
The issue isn't not being able to be neutral, but being discouraged from "switching side" by the fact that if you don't commit all the way some stuff is precluded from you.
>>332324157
>failblog
ITT: People that should play Shin Megami Tensei
Catherine.
You leave both girls behind and become a space astronaut.
Best ending.
Spazing out about it isn't any less pathetic you weirdo
What game is the OP pic from anyway?
>>332324641
Age of Decadence fits that 100%.
ME2 was a thousand times better when you cheat yourself maximum paragon and renegade points from the beginning.
>>332324947
What does that do?
>>332325041
Makes the game more enjoyable, by letting you choose wether or not you want to use a paragon/renegade action based on the context of the scene rather than forcing you to commit to one path because you'll get fucked over otherwise.
>>332323184
Consider the fact that neutral is usually the hardest job to accomplish
>Can't pick a side while still needing to resolving an issue
>Needing to find an ultimate solution to the issue instead of flaking on any aspect of a problem
It's easy to be good and it's easy to be evil but to find the perfect resolution you need to straddle the line
>>332325207
You're right that does sound better
>>332323184
>mass effect
>>332323184
There aren't really any neutral choices in games that don't involve just not getting involved (which often means missing out on content)
The only way to play a neutral character is just to do what ever you find most beneficial to you, and not think about any morality of it. You can help people and be a nice guy, but your motive should be that you're doing it in hopes of future benefits. If you ever come to a point where you can steal from, or kill, some one who dindu nuffin, just because you think you can get away with it and it's the easiest solution to your problems, then you'll do that.
The good side in games is always written as you to be some whiteknight, the evil side you're an edgy psychopath. Neutral is just logical choices with no emotions attached.
>>332323184
Contraty to a Renegade/Paragon or similar character, a neutral character can make choices AT ALL.
>>332325340
But that doesn't sound like roleplaying - that sounds like
>IVE GOT TO PLAY THE GAME ONE WAY OR NOT AT ALL
Which is why good, neutral or evil paths are stupid. You should always play games by ear.
>>332324641
undertale
no Im serious, that is the only game where I felt like my choices actually mattered
>>332325207
isn't that what they did in mass effect 3 though?
>>332325617
>neutral = selfish
Why? It may as well just be that you do whatever you feel like, not having every choice driven by some strict sense of morality
>>332325757
I honestly dont remember 90% of the shit that happened in ME3 and the things i do remember are the reasons why its a shit game.
>>332323184
>wanting more roles to play in a role playing game is a bad thing
ME choices aren't even "what would my character do?"
It's "what ending do I want?" and you just pick the red thing or the blue thing based on that
That's the opposite of role playing, that's staring straight through the game's systems
>want to play a neutral character
>can only be space jesus or the devil incarnate
>certain dialogue options are flat out disabled if your good / bad rating isn't high enough
>roleplaying
It defeats the whole purpose of roleplaying if you're going to force players to go into one extreme or the other, since this grants them stat bonuses (KOTOR) or additional / character critical dialogue options (Mass Effect).
>this thread
>people still believe neo-/v/ doesn't exist
I just there to be more choices than Literally Hitler and Jesus Christ Superstar.
>>332325705
It's more roleplaying than "I GOTTA EITHER FILL UP MY EVIL METER OR MY GOOD BOY METER IN ORDER TO GET THE BEST STUFF"
>>332325880
>ME choices aren't even "what would my character do?"
>It's "what ending do I want?" and you just pick the red thing or the blue thing based on that
Yet cucks like yourself defend shit games like this.
>>332323184
>the renegade logo
I might be wrong but that looks a fucking lot like the logo of Gunboats in Civ Beyond Earth
>inb4 shit game
I know that
>>332325705
This. Make choices just that - choices. The consequences of which will be measured by the player.
>>332326147
>OR MY GOOD BOY METER
You mean your good boy points?
>>332325874
I don't know man. I'm playing through that shit at the moment and so far nothing exceptionally bad has come up yet. The fact that they actually did away with the renegade/paragon levels and just merged them was a pleasant surprise.
>>332325925
This is the only benefit of the recent Fallout series, especially New Vegas. You can help folks in need, but if someone says "Howdy, cowboy!" a little sideways or you just don't like the cut of someone's jib you can pop their head clean off and take their boots.
And folks who see it will just react like "Yeah, that's life. You ain't none good but you ain't some devil neither."
Actually, it's just NV, I guess.
>>332326421
It fills up when you get GBP
>>332326492
When will Tali get me my fucking space tendies?
>>332326284
Haven't even played that one
I think playing actual Shadowrun would make more sense than playing a game based on it
Though I'll say Returns wasn't very good
>>332324641
Papers Please
>>332323184
>Paragon: everything you do and say make things end up right no matter what with no downsides
>Renegade: you're literally just being a jerk for no apparent reason, punching girls and killing things without gaining anything out of it
The whole concept behind ME's morality system was pretty idiotic.
>>332323184
Neutral will never work in games because neutral either have to be decisions that only benefit you (often put on evil, even if it isn't actually trying to do any evil) or something that interest your ideals (also impossible, because 90% your character ideals are good, so in the end you just end up being good, and any decision that isn't good is evil).
If I could backstab good people for my own gain or do kindness for my own gain without being tilted to either side I'd care about going neutral. It is not even possible for you to wait a minute and think "WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST GOOD THIS WOULD DO, NOT CARING ABOUT RIGHT OR WRONG" because choosing anything that isn't carebear choice will result in evil.
>>332323942
>to be neutral would mean they were completely passive
Now that's some great logic.
>>332324947
>>332325207
This.
Otherwise the game forces you to be a radical to one side or another.
And an RPG dictating to you how your character would act in a situation misses the point entirely.
>>332323184
>wanting to be neutral
>ever
Remember kids, apathy is death.
>>332326671
>I've never played a game in my life!
>>>/reddit/
>>332323184
I go Renegade 90% of the time, but don't go out of my way to be a dick. Basically, I do what's the most practical without being a dick. And I can be nice too, for instance, I gave Tali the geth data, healed the salarian worker in Thane's mission. That's literally the best way,
>>332323184
90% of the time when people say "I want to play a neutral character", they either want to play a "good, but not retarded bitchboi" character or the good/evil choice you make necessarily associates you with some in-universe faction that is inherently retarded, and you'd rather not have that.
It's retarded in most settings, but I would've killed to be able to adopt Jolee Bindo's philosophy in KotoR, which is technically "neutral" in the Star Wars setting.
The fucking Paragon/Renegade is not even supposed to be a goddamn good/evil system. Everyone fucking forgets that, and even Bioware did halfway through the trilogy.
>>332326808
fuck you, Kreia
>>332326894
Paragon choices are objectively better 99% of the times.
>>332326631
This.
Making your job of questionable morality, and you were punished for trying to be nice to people. It makes you shut up and do you job, because you want to have your family survive through the week. It's one of the few games where you actually have to ration supplies.
>>332326796
Protip: The reason Zapp attacking the neutral planet is funny is because they literally don't do anything
>>332325617
No, neutrality just means that you don't HAVE to act a certain way.
If you're on the "Good" path you have to help every nigger you meet because otherwise you're not a fucking Paragon of Virtue.
If you're on the "Evil" path you have to be huge jerk to everyone and fuck them over for shit and giggles.
I don't like karma systems because they often force you to act in a certain way instead of letting you roleplay every encounter.
>>332327156
Getting discounts renegade style is the best thing in ME2
>>332324641
I remember being forced to become a murderer in Fable 2 because I couldn't accept being locked out of an unique weapon.
>>332327163
Best of all it makes you into a villain without forcing you or making it obvious, like how real people become evil due to shitty circumstances.
>>332327156
>letting the Krogan population reproduce like flies
>paragon
>not letting a warmongering tribes numbers get out of hand
>literally hitler
>>332326808
>Waah my students fucked me over like I should've known they would, I mean we ARE fucking sith
>I'll get revenge by destroying the Force! If I can't have it all to myself, no one will!
Is there a more pretentious character?
Quick! Post good games that let's you play neutral!
I'll start.
>>332327426
Krogans have changed senpai.
>>332323532
But what are some examples you could give of actually neutral choices you could make to any of the major events? There are neutral dialog options but when it comes to the biggest decisions, they really only have two options and a neutral choice wouldn't really make sense or, realistically, work out for anybody and result in everyone being unhappy or dying. It's always shit like "what's more important, prioritizing on killing this guy and letting his current hostages die or saving the hostages and letting this guy get away to cause more harm later?" Not to mention, Paragon/Renegade isn't a good/evil system to begin with. It's more of a careful and diplomatic/shoot first ask questions later system. There are options to be a dick but no options to actually be evil.
>>332327674
SEVERAL MORE GODS REJECTED
>>332323184
>Paragon: You poor thing Shepard feel bad a bloo bloo
>Renegade: I'm going to rip your head off and fuck your neckhole CRAWLING IN MY SKIN
>Neither: I'm an indecisive retard
Fuck off OP the system was shit.
>>332327674
>>332327674
>>332327687
>It's always shit like "what's more important, prioritizing on killing this guy and letting his current hostages die or saving the hostages and letting this guy get away to cause more harm later?"
I see somebody else played Demonicon
>>332327863
Arh, beat me to it senpai.
Cursed Witcher's neutrality.
>>332323184
>>332325207
But ME2 already had a good system for that in that it didn't lock you out of both sides. The more Paragon options you picked, the more Paragon score you would get, thus unlocking more of the charm options and it was the same for Renegade. They were separate meters allowing you to play both sides instead of how the first game had it where you had to pick one or the other or else the game would lock you out of all charm/intimidate options.
>>332323184
>Nuanced morality = Neutrality
No. If a game forces you to be Super Jesus or Mega Satan at all times then then it's just incentive to replay it to pick the opposite options. Black and white stuff like that is fine, but in games that claim to stress player choice it's way too simplistic.
Neutrality is about not picking sides or being influenced or concerned with what is good or evil.
But Mass Effect wasn't about good or evil. Paragon is "by the book". Renegade is "screw the book, so long as it gets done"
>leave Tali's father to die
>rescue him, causing Tali and her family to be exiled
I might be remembering the details a bit wrong, but that was an interesting moral dilemma in Mass Effect 2. An interesting neutral moral dilemma. Neither was inherently good or evil. You might save a life, but end up costing far more in the end. It's too fucking bad that the paragon and renegade options completely ruined it. That choice came late enough in the game that everyone would have one end of the moral spectrum maxed out. And both sides had a special snowflake option that let you save her father and talk the Quarians into forgiving you for doing it. This was ultimately the point that made me give up on Mass Effect and not even buy the third game.
People don't want neutrality as in not making any choices, they want neutrality as in not being set in stone as the antichrist or a selfless saint from the moment you make your character. I want to make decisions on the fly based on what I think is the best option. But if one is always pure good and one is always pure evil, they both benefit you the same, or one benefits you far more as is often the case, and there are incentives to sticking to one end of the spectrum, then you aren't even making choices at all beyond the very first one. This childish interpretation of morality is seriously holding RPGs back. At the very least, remove the way it tracks which side your character is on.
>>332328137
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ussCHoQttyQ
>No one mentioned Shadow the Hedgehog.
I mean the game was edgy and all but it gave you ample opportunities to fuck what everyone else is telling you to do and just do what you want.
>>332325853
>It may as well just be that you do whatever you feel like
That's literally selfish or self-centerdness.
>>332327687
I can think of plenty neutral choices.
Example: You are sent by the leader of a village to kill a bandit that has been terrorizing the locals.
You can A) Spare him if he decides to repent (Good), B) Kill him for his crimes (Neutral), or C) Help the bandit by killing the village leader (Evil)
Now, this was just a small example, but you could set up plenty of similar situations where you have a choice beyond being Jesus/the Devil.
>>332328187
But what the fuck choices do you want? You guys never give real responses, always spouting nonsense about "muh philosophy" and "what IS morality???"
"karma points" or whatever you call them are a shit system from the get go the real way to do choice is actually branching story paths and case by case consequences instead of filling up a fucking meter that let's you do something when you hit enough points.
npc brownie point systems work sometimes though.
>>332328378
Yes but in order to even get the option to make the Quarians forgive you, you had to have completed certain other flags such as helping Tali on her pilgrimage in the first game. The game used your previous actions to allow you to prove to them that what you were doing was for the greater good. It wasn't purely based on being able to charm/intimidate them.
>Play as renegade
>Don't want to be a space racist though
>Every now and then my rough n' tumble guy turns into a scholar
>>332328152
>dont pick paragon/renegade every time
>Miranda or Jack end up dying in the final mission
Thats the kind of shit im talking about.
>>332328892
>Play Paragon but want to be space racist
It's hard out there for a Hitler
>>332328342
>Paragon is "by the book". Renegade is "screw the book, so long as it gets done"
See I thought this going into Mass Effect and was really excited for a different morality system, but in the end it really does boil down to Nice / Not Nice options.
Like, when you get the choice to free the Rachnid Queen or kill it in ME, the by-the-book choice should be killing it. Better safe than sorry and all that. The Renegade option should be the Dirty Harry option, doing what's right despite it going against regulations and freeing the alien, but nope, it's the exact opposite.
morality systems were a mistake
>>332328710
Make it less about morality and more about character tailoring. Fallout New Vegas off the top of my head is less to do with good vs evil and more about how you personally would go about fixing the wasteland. Sure you can play as an evil cunt or a choir boy but the point is that's not all there is.
>>332329051
It wasn't perfect but I thought it worked most of the time.
>>332328656
I'm talking about in the context of Mass Effect as that is the example that was given. Mass Effect didn't really present you with scenarios like this. My example was similar to the conclusion of the Bring Down the Sky DLC and to Zaeed's loyalty mission. Letting the guy go free to repent for his actions wasn't an option because that wasn't something the characters you were facing would allow. They weren't interested in changing their ways and that is the way the world works. You can't change everybody's minds just because you give them a fancy speech. It was either save the people in your immediate reach or nip the problem in the bud before it gets worse.
>people thinking "roleplaying" means actual roleplaying in video games
Sorry but shit has changed and now it just means there's an XP system in the game. Nothing else.
>>332329018
That shit wasn't tied to morality at all though. It was tied to completing their loyalty missions and who you sent to what tasks in the final assault, you moron.
>>332329384
>Mass Effect didn't really present you with scenarios like this
Which is the problem anon.
Mass Effect forces you to pick sides instead of presenting you with actual moral dilemmas.
>>332329552
>Sorry but shit has changed and now it just means there's an XP system in the game. Nothing else.
Makes sense because cucks pretend Witcher games are RPGs.
>>332329146
>more about how you personally would go about fixing the wasteland.
This is why I liked the endings in Devil Survivor. They weren't really tied to certain alignments, but more about different solutions to the larger problem.
>>332329661
That IS a moral dilemma though. If you take the guy out now, you don't have time to save his victims but if you go to save his victims, you don't have time to stop him from getting away. Either some people die now so he can't cause trouble later or you save those people now but he might kill others later.
>>332324641
fable 3 does this. all the evil options later o required to save everyone. unless you chop logs forever
One gripe I have with karma systems is even if you do some evil/good shit out in the middle of no where, in a place where there's no possible way for people to find out. People somehow know about what you did even in the next town you show up in and react accordingly. Like there's someone just stalking you and reporting on you to the public.
>>33232464
>"LOL, I'M SUCH A REBEL, FUCK THE AUTHORITIES XDDDD"
That's the good option in many cases though.
>>332329764
The first Witcher game actually has some pretty good roleplaying.
It has quests that are literally just you deciding what your opinion is about killing humans and stuff like that.
>>332329604
Jack and Miranda get in an argument near the end of the game. If you're not maxed out on paragon or renegade you couldn't resolve the conflict with both being happy. Whoever is unhappy WILL die.
>>332329604
Nope.
Jack and Miranda get into a fight sometime before the final mission.
You have to convince both of them to make up and that can only be achieved through high renegade or paragon stats.
Or you can side with one of them causing the other one to lose their loyalty status in the final mission causing them to die.
>>332323184
>>332330170
>The first Witcher game actually has some pretty good roleplaying.
Then where did it go so wrong?
>>332323184
>casual games
>>332323184
>those people that complain on a korean basket weaving forum about other people's preferred alignment in an rpg
>>332330016
good thing you don't actually have limited time and you can just go back and cheese the kingdom out of trouble with the investment capitalist minigame.
>>332327901
I thought he was talking about that falling skies DLC for ME1 or whatever.
>>332330312
Second game obviously, you couldn't be much in the way of neutral there.
>>332330241
>>332330308
Then don't take them with you to fight the final boss, dingus. Give them the task they are suited to and then leave them to the sidelines. Again, it's not tied to morality.
>>332329970
There is a myriad of ways that kind of scenario could be written, but instead they decided to set it up a binary choice.
I'm not talking about whether that specific choice was done well or not, but you make it sound like it impossible to write neutral choices. Mass Effect was made with a dichotomy in mind and it shows.
>>332324850
That doesn't even have an actual neutral path though. It's just doing both good and evil acts to "cancel" them out.
>>332330435
Oh. I guess that game Demonicon ripped it off cause it has the exact same setup.
>>332330312consoles
>>332330495
They die even if you assign them to the correct task, you retard.
>>332328613
I did like how the game didn't boil karma choices down to dialog options. It just changes the objectives you wanted to do. Just wish that depending on which side you were on the enemies would target or not target you appropriately.
Though I'm still confused about how killing Eggman and taking over his empire while believing yourself to be an android counts as neutral.
>>332330614
How's that not neutral?
>>332323184
It's not the wanting to be neutral, but having a less black and white morality system.
If the game is as story heavy as Mass Effect then it shouldn't be so black and white unless it's high fantasy or mythological.
>>332326659
I always felt like it boiled down to racist human first space redneck or aliens first we citadel now for moral choices
>>332323184
Maybe we want to make neutral choices because we fucking know that world is not onyl black and white you pathetic pice of shit?
Neutral is like, not trusting people and not wanting to help anyone and not caring enough either way. A neutral character probably would just go home and make dinner for his family and not worry about saving the universe.
>>332330809
Are you serious? "Cancelling" your acts out is not neutrality. If you spent a year as priest/monk/working at a homeless shelter or whatever you consider to be good, and then spent a year raping/killing/enslaving or whatever you consider to be bad, would that be considered a neutral two years?
>can't join Cerberus and wipe out xeno scum
D R O P P E D
>>332331050
You can make neutral choices. It's just that the neutral choices don't have a desired effect.
Good and evil decisions do the same thing except they just have different lines. The game isn't affected at all if you use either of them, only your appearance and what your character says or does in a cutscene. But if you choose neutral then you can easily lose crew members or can't access certain parts with such ease.
>>332331050
Okay let me present a scenario in a pretend game
>You stumble upon a rapist with his female victim
>Good option: Kill the rapist and help the girl get to safety
>Evil option: Kill the rapist and then rape or kill the girl
What should the neutral option be?
>>332331286
Kill the rapist and finish fucking the girl until she climaxes.
>>332331286
It would be:
>Apprehend the the rapist (good)
>Kill the rapist (neutral)
>Kill the rapist and rape the girl (evil)
How's that so fucking hard?
>>332331286
fap to the sight
>>332324641
Evil with justification isn't evil, it's morally grey. The only realistic justification for evil is for selfish purposes or being forced to be evil due to circumstances outside your control. So unless the game rewards you for being evil or outright forces your hand then pretty much all evil in the end boils down to
>"LOL, I'M SUCH A REBEL, FUCK THE AUTHORITIES XDDDD" or "I like to be edgy"
But in presented in less of a juvenile way.
>>332331286
The options you gave show you have no clue what you're talking about.
>>332331191
Yes.
You're neither evil nor good.
You're doing things for your own reasons. That can be considered neutrality.
And in SMT it's more about not siding with Demons and Angels.
>>332331286
>>332331463
I would think the neutral option is pay them no mind and continue on your way; it is no business of yours.
But this is all a bit silly; "kill the rapist" can be good, neutral, or evil depending on your view of vigilante justice and the appropriate usage of force when defending another.
>>332331569
>Evil with justification isn't evil, it's morally grey
>>332329970
This reminds me of that Asari you meet in that Krogon Cloning facility in ME1. I think the Paragon choice in that is giving her a chance to try to outrun the blast. And if you do that in ME2 you hear about how she went crazy due to Indoctrination and ends up killing people. But I haven't played ME2.
>>332323184
>First game has most Renegade options make sense barring the execution of someone under mind control
>Second game has you let a valuable crew member die in favor of adding a fucking serial killer on to the crew
>Third game has you as a psycho murderous retard
>>332331676
>And in SMT it's more about not siding with Demons and Angels
So then tell me how that and siding with some angels and some demons is the same? I mean they cancel each other out, right? So it's like you never sided with anyone!
>>332331597
>"Communism is great"
>Bring up Mao or Stalin
>"That's not REAL communism"
Literally all neutralfags
They never explain their claims and qualifications
>>332330614
That's not true. It might be true in a few of the games, but not all of the games. For example, in the first one Neutral is rejecting both the oppressive rule of the law side while also rejecting the cutthroat danger of the chaos side.
>>332331708
>I would think the neutral option is pay them no mind and continue on your way; it is no business of yours.
Cause that sounds really exciting for a video game
This is why games don't have neutral options, fags
>>332331708
Why do people always think of neutrality = indifference?
You're right that it all depends on the view, but in a video-game context neutrality is about allowing to choose the middle-ground.
In this example killing the rapist is not good, because you just killed a guy, but it's not really evil either since you did it to save an innocent girl.
>>332330016
I haven't played any of the fable games. But I remember hearing at the end of one of the games you have a choice between restoring everyone in the world or a big sack of gold. How off am I? I kind of want to play that game just to see if it's true and if so how stupid it is.
>>332330724
Nope, i managed to save both, while Jack being unloyal (because paragon/renegade score wasn't high enough)
>>332328152
Actually, the game counts up how many choices you've previously made and dynamically locks you out of being able to make the correct choices later if you don't stick to one or the other.
>>332323184
I hate when a game forces morality into the fucking stats of their game.
>raped a baby, that'll be 20 evil points
>but if I rescue these orphans I can get 20 good points
I prefer morality to be something that's more a backdrop to the story of a game, with more realistic consequences. If I'm a dick to one character, that closes up any options of becoming their ally in the future, and there might not be any clear reward for being a dick. I hate the gamefied idea that oh if I'm evil I'll get more gold, but if I'm good people will naturally see my +100 good points and I'll get a special treat later. The shadowrun games are set up to my liking. You can show the guy pleading for his life mercy, but if your mission was to go in and take him out, not killing him can have real consequences with your party members, and the people who gave you the job in the first place.
TLDR, morality should not be measured by in game numbers and should be expressed through good writing.
>>332331708
Lawfags wouldn't kill the rapist though. They would capture him and turn him into the authorities so that he can be judged in court. I'm serious.
>>332331996
Good thing you ignored all the other posts that might have had a point and only went for the one that sides with your argument.
I wish tumblr would leave.
>>332331805
if you let her live you meet her again while trying to get to okeer, where you have the option to let her leave again. she goes crazy in me3 but it's only a footnote in some report if i remember correctly.
>>332331840
SMT is not about Good/Neutral/Bad it's Law/Neutral/Chaotic.
So, doing chaotic acts makes you more aligned with demons and doing lawful acts makes you closer to the angels.
If you do both things you don't fit with either faction and basically you basically say "fuck you" to both sides.
>>332332168
well said anon
>>332332340
Which is why I said it doesn't have a true/actual neutral path.
>>332331884
There's been plenty of good examples.
It's you who resorts to strawmen.
>>332332168
Yup, too few games do this.
Good, bad and neutral are pretty much saturday morning cartoon tier characterisations.
Letting players decide based on a situation with appropriate rewards and punishments and not based on a shitty scoring system let's players choose more of an actual set of values with moral blind spots included.
>>332323184
Geralt in Witcher 1, telling the order he'll try to appease things with the scoiatel so they dont kill everyone
>tfw telling the captain to fuck off or I'd kill the order by myself, and he backs down
>>332332624
But in the witcher you can choose 3 paths.
>>332332521
Uh huh neutralfag
>>332332446
But it does?
You can place yourself at the exact middle in the spectrum. How can it be more neutral than that?
>>332331286
>Good option
>Kill
Whoa there, buddy boy!
You think the good path allows you to be "chaotic good" and not "lawful good". No.
And while that is good is extreme good, evil is only that "chaotic good" that you suggested, or maybe even "neutral evil", but certainly not "chaotic evil"
In reality in modern games it would be
>You stumble upon the rapist
>Good: You say "you don't have to do this" to the rapist or you'll pay him some money, he'll go away no questions asked and you have saved the girl, your relation will grow because you're a literal angel. You get no items.
>Bad: You kill the rapist and you have saved the girl, but her relation to you will lower because you're a violent "evil" pig. You get the offender's coins and items.
>Neutral: And since the attacker is a rapist, doing nothing would cause another bystander to save her because you can't have rape in a modern vidya. The girl will slight lower her relation to you because you did nothing. You get no items.
>>332327671
>there are people who think Kreia was a good guy or neutral
She's obviously evil I you look at her actions. I guess she was just too well-written so people wanted to sympathize with her but she's still an evil loon.
>>332332770
There's no hope for you. Never play D&D
>>332328137
>"tell my wife I said hello"
>>332332869
I think you need to look up what "neutrality" means.
>>332333056
neu·tral·i·ty
n(y)o͞oˈtralədē/
noun
noun: neutrality
1.
the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict, disagreement, etc.; impartiality.
So, tell me again how helping the angels and demons an equal amount is neutral.
>>332332805
> evil is only that "chaotic good"
I mean't lawful evil of course, but I guess "chaotic good" is also "evil" in these days.
>>332330847
That's what always bothered me about mass effect. The system that worked in a magical space opera like Kotor seems forced in a game where you're not a jedi.
>>332332854
agree desu
>>332333221
>So, tell me again how helping the angels and demons an equal amount is neutral.
>helping the angels and demons an equal amount
>impartial: treating all rivals or disputants equally.
oopsy poopsy X3
>>332333221
Have you actually played the game anon?
You have the option to pick neither side.
As in: NOT. CHOOSING. A. SIDE.
Jesus
>>332333221
Over all since they're both helped neither have an edge on each other. They're basically right back where they started but you got something out of it.
>>332333393
Search Results
Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
You're terrible at this.
>>332333525
Yeah I have. You're presented with various choices that may or may not seem relevant but give you negative or positive points. Things as simple as putting your arm out for the gauntlet or whatever it was in SMT IV affect it.
>>332333545
>the state of not supporting or helping either side in a conflict
Pretty sure supporting both sides is supporting a side. Is supporting not supporting?
>>332331714
Well that's certainly something I said. I'm open to being proven wrong if you feel inclined to do so.
But evil is something that is bad. That's the rather universally accepted definition. Bad things don't have justification. They are bad because they are bad. Justification means that something is justified. It's just, even if it's morally deplorable.
>>332333871
You're not really supporting both sides, you're playing both sides.
>>332334009
So memes aside, Hitler taking out the jews was morally grey?
If I killed you and my justification was that I didn't like your opinion is that morally grey?
>>332333871
>Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness) is a principle of justice holding that decisions should be based on objective criteria, rather than on the basis of bias, prejudice, or preferring the benefit to one person over another for improper reasons.
>Impartiality (also called evenhandedness or fair-mindedness)
>helping two sides an equal amount is biased/prejudiced/preferring to benefit one side over another
You're terrible at this.
>>332333871
>Pretty sure supporting both sides is supporting a side.
This is the most stupid thing I've ever seen.
Look at this anon.
>Neutral and neutrality may mean the following: It derives from the Latin neuter, "neither one, nor the other".
See in the game you "neither" side with demons, "nor" side with the angels.
That's what we call neutrality.
>You're presented with various choices that may or may not seem relevant but give you negative or positive point
AND you canwait a minutepick choices that give zero points!
Congratulations anon, you're a retard.
>>332334167
>It's not supporting them when I support them it's playing them
Now you're just arguing semantics.
If asked if you supported side A what would you say? If asked if you supported side B what would you say?
>>332334479
>>Pretty sure supporting both sides is supporting a side.
>This is the most stupid thing I've ever seen.
Did you support side A yes or no?
Did you support side B yes or no?
>>332334009
You can always justify your actions though.
Every war-crime in history could be justified, but we still agree that they were horrible.
>>332323184
That picture is just reminding me that I really hated Mass Effect's morality system because it just locks you out of dialogue options if you didn't get enough Space Jesus/Space Dick points. There is sometimes a third option in the middle, but it's usually just a slight rephrasing or the exact same line as one of the other options, just without you getting the points for it, so what is the point?
It forces you to stick to one dialog option, either top or bottom, because you'll get punished if you don't. You stop thinking about what you want the character to actually do and just pick the option on top or bottom because you need the points.
In ME1 you even have Persuasion and Intimidate skills that you actually need to level up, but they're locked behind Space Jesus/Space Dick point thresholds. Why not just let the player level up persuasion or intimidate?
In ME2, you will have at least one crew dispute you cannot resolve if you don't have enough points, losing loyalty with a squad member, which might end up killing them in the final mission for some reason.
In ME3, I think I was locked out of the final Persuasion option because I think I may not have had enough good guy points, even though the bar looked like it was maxed out. I'm not sure if there was some other condition I wasn't meeting, but these options are only effected by your good guy/bad guy points in every other situation in the series, so I doubt it.
And the real kick in the balls is that Paragon options almost never have any repercussions. Maybe once in the entire series do you get fucked over for choosing Paragon, while going Renegade constantly fucks you over.
Man, I hope this system isn't in Andromeda, because it's garbage, and it's been garbage for three games in a row.
>>332334717
>If asked if you supported side A what would you say? If asked if you supported side B what would you say?
Depends on who's asking. It's all part of the game after all.
>>332334479
>>332334806
Lying or deceiving doesn't change your past actions.
>>332334717
Anon imagine a scale.
If I put weights on both sides, then I've interacted with both sides but I'm supporting neither.
I find it amazing that you can be this thickheaded.
>>332335051
Depends on who you ask.
>>332335051
But how would they know about my past actions?
>>332335243
Irrelevant. If you supported a side then you supported a side.
>>332335139
I gave side A 10 weapons and side B 10 weapons but they didn't get any support from me.
>>332335386
So now we're discussing the semantics of support? Supplying someone with resources sure seems like supporting a side.
Well, to be honest you can think what you want. I'm not gonna bother anymore.
>>332335974
>Supplying someone with resources sure seems like supporting a side
Yeah, it is.
>>332332168
The only thing I didn't like about how SR: Dragonfall handled moral choices was that every fucker in your squad was a trenchcoat-wearing "muh mission, dun wanna upset Johnson" moralfag, who prioritises completing the mission, and then general moral concerns in that order every time. I think Dietrich occasionally dissents slightly from that path, but other than him, all you have in Blitz, who's just in it for the kicks and the money.
>yo, you want to use this metahuman as a remote-controlled demolition machine?
>Glory: That'll screw with the mission. And maybe it's fucked up too.
>Dietrich: That's fucked up.
>Eiger: That's fucked up and will screw with the mission.
>Blitz: OH YEAH SHIT LEMME PILOT THIS MOTHERFUCKER SHIT'LL BE CRAZY PLEASE BOSS GIVE ME THE FUCKING CONTROLS I WANT TO PARTY HARD WITH THIS METAL MAN WOOOOOOOO!
>>332323184
Binary moral choice is a perfectly normal complaint
In any story, having a GOOD and EVIL decision to make is insipid because it forces the player down one or two paths, which is intrinsically why DnD has the 9x9 chart.
Instead of just good or evil, games should strive for shit like The Witcher 3 where morality isn't really a thing in most decisions.
Deus Ex HR does this in the first level during a hostage situation- do you
A) Infuriate the hostage taker? This kills the subject but forces him to stay, and allows a swift takedown.
B) Try to talk him out of it? This lets him get away but saves the hostage.
There needs to be more moral quandries like this in videogames.
>>332336664
>Instead of just good or evil, games should strive for shit like The Witcher 3 where morality isn't really a thing in most decisions.
>The Witcher 3
So instead of striving to be an RPG, it should strive to be a terrible action adventure game.
Got you senpai
One gripe I have with morality systems is when they give you the dialog options, they'll be color coded and then show you something like "+20 Dick points" or "+20 Jesus points". Having that so out in the open like that doesn't seem right to me for some reason but I can't explain why.
And this isn't directly related to morality systems but I don't like when the dialog options don't show you exactly what you'll say or do when you choose it. So you end up with shit like glass him.
>>332334723
>>332334236
Justifying your actions with evil reasoning is not justification. It's trying to convince yourself that what your doing isn't wrong.
You may feel you're justified, but justification isn't for yourself. Justification is something that others give you because they feel your actions despite being deplorable were necessary. Something that is necessary cannot be evil, only morally grey.
>>332323184
Isn't neutral just basically the "take the least retarded choice at the time" route?
>>332337143
>Justification is something that others give you because they feel your actions despite being deplorable were necessary
So like all of Hitler's supporters and people he surrounded himself with?
>>332336664
I like when there are no clear cut moral choices, but the gameplay itself causes you to make moral choices on your own.
For example, Papers Please awards more money for the more people you process. So in an effort to keep your family fed, you slowly speed up your judgement skills and simply lose the ability to care about the immigrants you are processing.
Similarly, Darkest Dungeon allows you to heal your members' mental conditions at a sanitorum, which costs lots of time or money. Or you could just hire a few other adventurers. Here, the most efficient way to keep on going would be to let your fellow members rot.
In both cases, there's no explicit text saying one is a good choice and one is bad, and there is no real reward for doing good deeds outside of the satisfaction you get out of it.
>>332337143
>Something that is necessary cannot be evil, only morally grey.
Who decides what is necessary? It all depends on your point of view.
>>332323532
/thread
>>332337405
>It all depends on your point of view.
And this is why neutralfags are never taken seriously.
>not going full <renegade> everytime
>>332323184
>HOW DARE PEOPLE WANT TO ROLE PLAY IN A ROLE PLAYING GAME
>>332337405
From my point of view the Jedi are evil!
>>332327687
The real neutral options should be presented in gameplay.
If you have the option to either kill a man with hostages at the risk of his hostages lives or to let him go to ensure the hostages safety, then ultimately the best course of action would be to:
-Present these two options to the player
-Let them choose one way or another
-Let them be able to change the outcome of their choice via their own actions via gameplay, thus presenting them with a third(or more) neutral option
Examples:
-Choosing to kill the man with hostages, but instead of killing the hostages in a cutscene have them gundowned in real time as you try to kill the man thus giving you the ever so slight chance of being able to still save them if you're skilled enough.
-Choosing to let him leave ensures the hostages safety, but have him still exist within the gameplay parameters and have him still be able to be caught if you're good enough to do so.
>>332324887
>Age of Decadenc
is that a good rpg? worth playing?
>>332323184
I just want to choose whatever I would in real life without missing out on content.
Fuck choosing options just so I can fill up my paragon/renegade
>>332337623
But I'm arguing against the neutralfag?
>>332337709
You were the chosen one!
>>332337343
Who are they themselves denied justification by the greater community they are apart of.
>>332337405
>Who decides what is necessary? It all depends on your point of view.
But said point of view can be put in the context of what the individual values. AKA, an individual who values themselves to the degree such that they would devalue and ruin the lives of others to further themselves or an individual who values the greater community they are apart of to the degree that they will give of themselves to improve the quality of the community.
AKA selfishness vs selflessness, AKA evil vs good.
Geralt suppose to be Neutral. All the Witchers suppose to be Neutral.
I didn't play the games, but read the books. How does that work out in games?
>>332323184
i want to make all decisions of my playthrough from the beginning - the post
>>332338348
>selfishness vs selflessnes = AKA evil vs good.
That's just wrong. Hitler did what he did for the good of the German people. In other words: a selfless act.
>>332338637
>Geralt suppose to be Neutral
If you read the books you would know that he just made up those rules.
>>332329051
I'd suggest giving Alpha Protocol a try. Your choices are neither by the book or screw the book since you're given free reign to act how you see fit. It does away with a morality system and simply has a reputation with different factions/characters system. And having character like or hate you gives you different rewards.
>>332338637
He's a shitty neutral good character with the best you get is that your poor decisions hurt people. Geralt never does anything actually evil.
>>332332054
three choices actually for fable 2. save everyone who died building big bads tower, take a big bag of gold, orbring your dog back from the dead
>>332338868
>Hitler did what he did for the good of the German people.
This part is contentious, but that's not the flaw in your argument.
>>332338348
>individual who values themselves to the degree such that they would devalue and ruin the lives of others to further themselves
On the macro scale, the individual here is Germany and the lives of others is Humanity as a whole. Germany (led by Hitler) was willing to destroy the lives of others for it's own gain.
>>332338348
>or an individual who values the greater community they are apart of to the degree that they will give of themselves to improve the quality of the community
Hitler made himself the "villain" to better Germany.
>>332338974
>If you read the books you would know that he just made up those rules.
HE didn't made up shit. That is the way he was raised. But he is a goody2shoes.
>>332339012>Implying I haven't
>>332339373
What?
He says outright in one of the short-stories that he made up the Witcher's Code as an excuse he could use when he didn't want to do some shit.
>>332339598
>He says outright in one of the short-stories that he made up the Witcher's Code as an excuse he could use when he didn't want to do some shit.
What short stories are you talking about?
I've only read the 'original' books by Sapkovski. Have no idea what short stories you refer to.
>>332339348
Germany made themselves the villain to better themselves. Assuming a single individual can assume all responsibility for a community is what allows people to ignore their own shortcomings.
>>332332805
>Hitler
>lawful
>Stalin
>backstabber
THE FUCKING IRONY
>>332323184
APATHY IS DEATH
>>332339750
I think it's from one of the stories in Sword of Destiny. It might be the one called "A Little Sacrifice" although I don't remember.
The Witcher's Code is pretty much just a device Geralt uses when he interacts with people. It lets him justify his actions without having to explain to his client.
>>332330753
Eggman is evil as fuck. Killing him could be considered a GOOD act if you're not one of those "Killing him will make you just like him!" idiots.
Then once you have taken over his robot empire while believing to be a robot you're free to make a robot nation by the robots for the robots which theoretically would be about putting your own interests as a nation forward instead of constantly trying to take over the world like Eggman does. It's not a GOOD act since you could theoretically just continue Eggman's work of trying to take over the world, but it's not an evil one because you could theoretically make things better.
>>332324641
>Is there a game that actually manages to successfully motivate you to want to go evil, as opposed to picking a good path?
Uh, you mean like Mass Effect? Except in ME it's not "good vs evil" it's more "principled hero vs ruthless pragmatist."
>>332340885
Sounds nice in theory. Too bad they basically treat Renegade like being evil.
>>332340698
From what I remember about the two endings. They're both about Shadow going on to wipe out all organic life, Earth made, Black Arm, or otherwise and replacing it all with robots.
>>332341180
Well then in that case at least he's destroying the bad guys too? Honestly, I can't remember the details. I suppose from a point of view he's neutral in that he isn't joining one side or the other but instead opposing both of them.
>>332323184
Renegade path in Mass Effect was pretty fucking cool, it wasn't something artificial either, you could say fuck everybody and do what you think is right or be a liberal fuckwad that tries to help everybody and gets fucked over because of it. Also those awesome scars.
>>332323184
Two choice moral choice system is bull shit.
>>332341629
Paragon never gets fucked over though aside from the Zaeed mission.
Renegade always gets fucked over
>>332326659
>>Paragon: everything you do and say make things end up right no matter what with no downsides
This is wrong, Paragon is more of an idealist and diplomatic path. When it came to gameplay, it brought more of a challenge, like in Feros, where you had to use the knock out gas grenades on the colonists, as opposed to just killing them. This forced you to be more careful and forced you to try to conserve your grenades.
>>Renegade: you're literally just being a jerk for no apparent reason, punching girls and killing things without gaining anything out of it
No, your reasons for being a jerk is that it's efficient. You're more aggressive and have an "ends justify the means" worldview. This goes back to that Feros mission. Why bother putting yourself in more danger and going out of your way to knock the colonists out when you could just shoot them? They're trying to kill you anyway.
And don't you dare tell me punching that reporter bitch wasn't satisfying as fuck.
ME was one of the few games that did a morality system right, whereas most games' idea of a morality system is "Mary Sue vs Edgelord."
>>332341000
Is this the case for the other games? I've only played the first one so I'd argue that it's not like that when it comes to that game.
>>332323942
>fight for the blue side
>fight for the red side
>sell arms to both sides
find the neutral option.
>>332323184
>Play good RPGs like Fallout 1/2, The Witcher 1-3
>Get to be a neutral piece of shit
>Play Biotrash
>Railroaded into saturday morning cartoon villain vs the second coming of christ
>>332342785
>Fallout 2
>good
>>332342538
Renegade gets a lot more retarded as the games go on.
Plus a lot of Renegade options just come back to bite you in the ass while pretty much every single Paragon option has zero downsides. There's a loyalty mission in Mass Effect 2 with one of the DLC characters, Zaeed, where choosing the Paragon option, saving factory workers from an exploding factory, may prevent you from getting that Zaeed's loyalty, which will may or may not be a cause for some of your crew members dying in the final mission, while the Renegade option of chasing the bad guy and ignoring the factory workers will get you Zaeed's loyalty
>>332323184
But I WAS neutral, and I had access to way more options than running full paragon or full renegade.
>locking dialogue options behind a arbitrary Good/Bad meter
This is stupid and you can't defend it.
>>332323184
"I hate neutrals, you never know where they stand"
>>332343573
Sure you can. The more of a known asshole you are, the less convincing your nice appeals are going to be.
>>332343025
Get out /v/, get out my board, you /v/.
>>332323184
>using a Bioshit game as an example of why neutrality is bad
Neutaity allows you more freedom of choice dedicated by your own actions rather then being based of some system of morality. Rather then choosing the ham fisted options of being a spineless carpet to work over or an evil for the sake of giggles cunt Neutral allows you to walk the fine line between the two giving you better insight from both sides of the conflict while allowing you to be free in your dealings.
The only game that really does this well is SMT because your choices in neutrality allow you to either help or fuck over entire religious pantheons without actually dealing with their extreme endgames which consist of Order or Chaos.
Also
>tfw you have played both sides off each other so well that you are rolling in the dough while saving many who would have otherwise perished if you had chosen to take a side in this matter.
>Is there anything more pathetic?
Well, there's people who have strong opinions about the way other people play RPGs.
>>332323817
Or they see Neutral endings as the True Endings, like the SMT stuff. Unchained from both faith and raw instincts, true achievement can be obtained by being in a perpetual state of Whatever.
>Don't play ME at all
>So neutral you're utterly indifferent
Tell my wife I said hello.
>>332343025
>Frank Horrigan
>Not an awesome boss
>>332344123
Neutral Routes in SMT also tend to be harder because you have to go through the end bosses of both Law and Chaos because you won't play their game.
>>332342604
>sell arms to both sides
>save everyone in the end
>>332328613
Hey, someone else who loved all of the options you got. And all of the different paths gave you a special name for your ending. I liked that.
