Moral issues

[playongrass]

Okay, so killing is my business, and business is good...

But what about morals?

Do I wanna kill off the animals that are being protected by the Circle of Light just for gaining some spells or skills?

 

Am I missing something or is that what needs to be done...

I know you probably can just skip it, but is there some benefit to sparing the life of these creatures? Or should I just take them out and go for the goods?

 

Seems that there are a lot more of these kinds of decisions than in previous games, is Jeff messin' with our minds?

[*i]

In A5, morals are pretty much up to your role playing experience. There are few in-game negative consequences for being evil other than towns going hostile. So play in a way that enhances your experience the most.

[Randomizer]

Jeff loves to include moral dilemmas, even though most of us are amoral powergamers. Kill them all seems to be the general idea. There are places where you don't want to do it, because there are some benefits.

 

The major consequence of not doing these quests, especially the Circle of Life ones is not getting something later. Destroying them in the Dark River area allows you to fulfill Donicio's quest. You do get choices in how much damage you do to them.

[Swivelable]

I've found myself justifying my theiving tendancies with the thought that these poor folks will never use the few potions in this chest anyway, and it's all going to a good cause.

But, yea, I've considered the fact that my characters, honorable as they may be, are not to be trusted with personal property.

 

Personally, I'd rather see a diversfied assortment of life out there - keeps all the balances right. But I'm not so sure I would be happy that my neighbors were raising something vicious that might chomp on me one day. It's not extermination, is it?

 

Well, maybe for the giants it will be. But they're all crazy anyway, so can't I justify my ridding the land of them that way?

 

So maybe morals are based on the expediency of what needs to get done to attain your goals. Fortunatley I have too much empathy to live like that in real life. But it's one of the nice reasons to be able to role play

[scottk]

Quote:

Originally written by Randomizer:
You do get choices in how much damage you do to them.

However, in this case, there is sheer pleasure in reading her surprise when you decide to go for the no mercy route. Not to mention the really nice item she drops...

[Student of Trinity]

The Circle of Life are clearly wackos who need to be put down. Raising more vicious and twisted beasts? In Avernum?

 

Sure, it's a point of view. And it fits the surprising overall theme of A5. Until now, the underworld was a frontier whose opportunity was limited only by its hostility. Now we suddenly see it as a limited resource for which many parties are contending. So the vicious and twisted beasts are one more set of contenders for cavespace. No doubt they have some kind of legitimacy.

 

But Avernites old, Avernites new, the Empire, the Vahnatai, and the more intelligent underworld creatures, are all more persuasive contenders. Let the basilisks go to the wall, I say. We'll be doing implausibly well if we can just arbitrate among all the articulate parties.

[Randomizer]

Quote:

Originally written by Student of Trinity:
We'll be doing implausibly well if we can just arbitrate among all the articulate parties.

Jeff added a new articulate party to the equation this game. Also Melanchion is supposed to be back for Avernum 6 so it looks like the monster minorities are going to have a greater voice.

[Swivelable]

Corusca-Eye and Greldyan at the Lake of Trials are two good ones for the moral question. I like them both. Are the spoils of war tempting enough to do in these fine specimens? Or have I aquired enough nature lore to respect their existence? The ability to mine those dern treasure pits have no doubt made my warriers way too sensitive for such mindless slaughter!

 

oops, just traveled a little further - I take that back about Corusca

[Diprosopus]

If you feel that Avernum 5 has convincing moral dilemmas, you may want to see if your university offers any courses in ethics. Most of Jeff's games are not made to stress the mind of the player much. A truly compelling dilemma would be where ethical choices force you into certain paths by making it more difficult to act contrary to the way you'd acted before, rather than the typical, detached accumulation of "value points."

[Ephesos]

Quote:

Originally written by Diprosopus:
A truly compelling dilemma would be where ethical choices force you into certain paths by making it more difficult to act contrary to the way you'd acted before, rather than the typical, detached accumulation of "value points."

No, that's just a way to limit the player's choices. And that to an extent is present in the game, in that some of the larger choices you make will have a rather significant effect on your playthrough. You can't fight for the Empire and the Loyalists, you can't serve Gladwell and not be a pest to everyone else, and there's generally a lot of things you can't un-kill.

If the game implemented the kind of system you seem to want for anything other than the larger choices (i.e. the Empire/Loyalists split), then it would be taking away the player's free will. I think that would make it less fun, but if you like your morality to be set on rails, then by all means email Jeff.

[Diprosopus]

You misunderstand: I mean to say that initial choices should define the party's character. It makes no real sense for the most ardent supporter of one side to express an opinion contrary to that. Or alternatively, if Jeff still allows the player to contradict her character, it should affect the player proportionate to how much the player is already devoted. The "answer x, y or z to gain however many points" system is uncreative and lowers the "moral" dilemmas from being central features of the game into useless busywork.

[Sudanna]

Yes, games do tend to be less like real life.

[Randomizer]

Geneforge games especially GF4 have a defined limitation on what you can do based upon past moral decisions. Avernum games tend to be more forgiving of moral imperfections. Any guilt you feel really doesn't change the game. Basically you decided not to harm someone and you miss out on the loot.

[Diprosopus]

Except, the Geneforge games don't handle it realistically, making it a very uncompelling adventure. Didn't one of you bright people compute how badly you can obtain rewards from both sides of the conflict? You'd think that after betraying one side, you wouldn't be trusted by the other nearly as much.

 

Anyway, all of the moral dilemmas in Geneforge are still nothing but extremely separated political positions with no variation within them, and the game never presents any challenges beyond "pick this overarching ideology" and never really challenges the player once the choice is made beyond putting different colored rogues in front of them.

[Student of Trinity]

There's no point expecting Jeff to make a game that forces you to make painful moral choices again and again. Too few people buy painful games. If you want moral choices, though, you can have them in his games. Just think about the consequences, and role play.

 

It's also worth recognizing that not all ethical choices are interesting dilemmas. Many are no-brainers, though often the price to be paid for acting morally is painful. It's naive to think morality is always so simple, but it's foolish to imagine it never is.

 

The most common kind of difficult moral dilemma is still not exactly interesting as a philosophical problem, in that it depends simply upon lack of information. When you're not sure what the consequences of any action will be, it can be much harder to know what is right. Games like Jeff's inevitably leave lots of things open to interpretation. Just how crazy is Barzahl going to get? Does Tuldaric really remember which side he's on? You can't tell.

 

Should the game eventually offer you a neat resolution to all these ambiguities? To me, that would really be less morally sophisticated. As it is, it's up to the interested player to make their own interpretations.

[Igor]

Quote:

Originally written by Randomizer:
[QB]Jeff loves to include moral dilemmas, even though most of us are amoral powergamers. Kill them all seems to be the general idea.

I thought our motto was "kill it and take its stuff!"

[Jeran Korak]

Quote:

Originally written by Igor:

Quote:

Originally written by Randomizer:
[QB]Jeff loves to include moral dilemmas, even though most of us are amoral powergamers. Kill them all seems to be the general idea.

I thought our motto was "kill it and take its stuff!"

Just about, by the way, welcome back.