Going Rogue's moral compass vs SW:OR
By
Aliana Blue,
Posted on: 2009-05-15 19:22 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
[ QUOTE ]
That said, one would hope that whatever Karma mechanic NCNC... Paragon Studios pick, it won't be as... Petty as most of these have been. Most of the time these systems allow a good guy to be good in a generally consistent manner: have principles, do good, don't give into evil. Evil characters, however, aren't so much evil as schizophrenic or compulsive or, more commonly, just plain idiots. Evil on your typical Karma meter is achieved by being a jerk as often as possible, assuming that a character who says mean things and kicks puppies a thousand times is as bad as someone who, say, imposes genocide on an entire species. Evil tends to mean more "jerk" than... Well, "evil."
[/ QUOTE ]
Reminds me of Yatzee's review of Bioshock.
"There are only two endings, a good one and a bad one and the extreme contrast between them is rather jarring. In the good ending you're a virtuous flower child with love and a smile for all the shiny coated beasts under god's kingdom; and in the bad ending you're some kind of hybrid of Hitler and Skeletor who's very wee is pure liquid malevolence. I'm sick of games that claim to have choice but only come down to either Mother Teresa and Baby Eating."
I sit in my zen of not being able to do anything right while simultaniously not being able to do anything wrong. Om. -CuppaJo
It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion. It is by the beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone that I set my mind in motion.
[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, Alignment changes were never too common in pen and paper RPGs, they did happen but not all that much, except for the two star wars RPGs which relied on a dark side points system.
[/ QUOTE ]
Alignment, no, but there are games with a type of "moral compass" mechanic, like Unknown Armies' madness meters, where extreme actions have psychological consequences (rarely good ones).
[ QUOTE ]
Last thought... CoH in setting and the feel of the major NPCs always seemed a lot more like DC then Marvel to me... DC doesn't have nearly as much sideswapping as Marvel does.
[/ QUOTE ]
That's very much a matter of opinion, because I distinctly have the opposite impression. I consider CoX to be somewhat close to Marvel than to DC in tone.
[[ QUOTE ]
]Sure you got Hal Jordan becoming Paralax, or Hawk going crazy... you get the occasional conversion but Marvel deals a lot moe with moral relativism where DC usually only tackles that during special events, and tries to keep a grander, cleaner and more mythological image. Not to say it isn't there, and you've got heroes who the media turns against them (Supergirl) just like in Marvel... but the lines are more clear cut I've found. You got you're Supermans and Batmans and you've got your Jokers, Darksieds and Lex Luthors.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that CoX didn't have as much of this because simply the mechanics wouldn't allow it...
...but even still you have some rather morally questionable heroes like Infernal and Lady Grey. Malaise was originally a villain. In one story arc for Peter Themari, you turn a young heroine (Pyriss) into a villain (who meets a nasty end later on). Then you've got the Doctor Aeon/Professor Echo switcheroo (however that works). There is a CoT mage, Akaris , who turns good. Sigil sold her soul to a demon.
There's alot of moral grey area already established in the game.
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if it's the source material that made it inevitable or the player's perception of what a superhero MMO should be, but side swapping was inevitable even if the moral compass wasn't.
[/ QUOTE ]
This I agree with. In response to the OP, I've seen enough from the devs about how they wanted to handle side swapping for some time now (and they said it was on their "wish list" since the beginning) so I do not believe SW:OR had anything whatsoever to do with it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eltonio
This is over the top mental slavery.
|
[ QUOTE ]
The alignment changes is pretty much universally hated by long time DnD players, as it was rather stupid and pointless. My point is that while it's totally idiotic, you can just do a handwave and keep the original 9 alignments.
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the nine ill-defined alignments that no one could really ever agree on exactly what they meant (and still can't to this day)?
Frankly the alignment grid was a neat innovation some 30 years ago, but really it's outgrown it's usefulness.
I've been playing D&D since the red box and I'm glad they finally simplified the system so there aren't hours long arguements if, for example, something was actually Lawful or not (the typical "If the king says you have to kill peasants and you don't then you're not being lawful!" stuipidity).
The new system is a clear consistent dualistic slider. While simple, it is sure alot easier to figure out where someone falls.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eltonio
This is over the top mental slavery.
|
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Might I take this moment to point out Dungeons & Dragons? Good/Evil-Lawful/Chaotic. A system invented years before computer games were sophisticated enough to include those kinds of scales.
[/ QUOTE ]
And a system that, sadly, they did away with in the latest iteration of the game.
Now you can only be lawful good,good, neutral, evil or chaotic evil...
[/ QUOTE ]Fixed. If you're going to rage about the alignment system, actually read it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually it's not neutral anymore. It's Unaligned. Which is not necessarily the same thing (and makes alot more sense).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by eltonio
This is over the top mental slavery.
|
<3 Fallout, 1 & 2.
That is all.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The alignment changes is pretty much universally hated by long time DnD players, as it was rather stupid and pointless. My point is that while it's totally idiotic, you can just do a handwave and keep the original 9 alignments.
[/ QUOTE ]
You mean the nine ill-defined alignments that no one could really ever agree on exactly what they meant (and still can't to this day)?
Frankly the alignment grid was a neat innovation some 30 years ago, but really it's outgrown it's usefulness.
I've been playing D&D since the red box and I'm glad they finally simplified the system so there aren't hours long arguements if, for example, something was actually Lawful or not (the typical "If the king says you have to kill peasants and you don't then you're not being lawful!" stuipidity).
The new system is a clear consistent dualistic slider. While simple, it is sure alot easier to figure out where someone falls.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. I do mean that if you so wish you can still use that alignment system. Nothing is stopping a group from doing so, whether you hate it or not.
[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's not neutral anymore. It's Unaligned. Which is not necessarily the same thing (and makes alot more sense).
[/ QUOTE ]
So I see you didn't read the part of the true neutral alignment description where it said that neutral also encompasses people who don't make a big deal out of being good/evil or lawful/chaotic. You know, your average person. Which is exactly what unaligned is. 
I don't think those other 2 Super games are even competeing with this game. I think they are competing against each other >.>
I wonder why I think that? *Ponders*
They aren't really the same type of games >.>
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Might I take this moment to point out Dungeons & Dragons? Good/Evil-Lawful/Chaotic. A system invented years before computer games were sophisticated enough to include those kinds of scales.
[/ QUOTE ]
And a system that, sadly, they did away with in the latest iteration of the game.
Now you can only be lawful good,good, neutral, evil or chaotic evil...
[/ QUOTE ]Fixed. If you're going to rage about the alignment system, actually read it.