Story Problem: 'Kill' or 'Kill'? (Spoilers)

One of the things I've seen in the various less vitriolic, accusatory comments here is a basic disagreement on what it means to 'walk the line'.

When I think of 'walking the line' between good and evil, I often think of the literary works of a certain Mister Pratchett. He presents an array of characters that consider themselves villains, heroes, or neutrals that are often butted up so firmly against 'the line' that they flinch away from it to keep from going over. When they do go over, it's usually to repair a more serious break caused by another party.

Esmerelda Weatherwax is a good example. (Yes, i could examine Sam Vimes, but I'd prefer not to draw policework into the comparison.) She considers herself to be a step or less away from going 'Black'. She resents her older sister for being the 'wicked' witch because it meant that she had to be the good witch. Yet when it comes time to really let out the badness for the cause of good, she *REALLY* enjoys it. There's a certain scene in 'Masquerade' where a group of thugs are trailing a somewhat senile old woman. Greebo, magicked to appear as a human, has sliced them to ribbons. Granny finds them after taking the old woman home, approaches them with a needle and thread and smiling, says, "Let's do some good!"

The implication is pretty clear. She sutured the critically wounded thugs with no anesthetic in a filthy back alley of one of the nastiest cities in modern literature. She saved their lives, certainly, but she also taught them in very direct terms what the pay for preying on old ladies is and ENJOYED it immensely.

THIS is a character who 'walks the line' and is defined by *her own* ethical choices rather than by reacting to someone else's.

I *wish* we could make the same kind of definition for our characters, but even with the new systems in place, the writers do not allow us to.

Then start writing a book, Moo.

Games will never have what you're looking for.