Because this isn't Fable.
It's not about Stupid Good and Stupid Evil.
It's about actual "role-playing".
So the choices should be in the gray area.
But even then, say there was an old lady that wants some cake.
She's nice, wouldn't hurt a fly.
So why does it need to be a way to be evil towards her?
What reason is there to poison the cake?
Just cause you could?
That's awful storytelling.
Without a proper reason to be "evil" or "bad" the quest does not need to have that solution.
Just like that old guy in Novac.
He gives you a quest to find out who killed his brahmin.
IIRC, there are no evil or bad solutions to it.
It's either help him, help him and sprinkle a little greed on top or leave him alone and don't solve the quest.
So I think that it depends on the role one has chosen.
As I said, my character didn't like The Kings so he never did their storyline.
I could have gotten more exp and money by doing it, but I didn't.
Why?
Cause it didn't fit the role I had in mind.
Same thing here, why do your character want to do the "evil" option?
Why does he/she need an evil option?
Just to be evil for the sake of being evil?
Again, this isn't fable.
So no, every quest does not need to have an evil option just for the sake of having an evil option.

Gabriel:Karma choices are still "role playing"


If someone walks up to you and asks if you would like to use a poison to eliminate some pesky geckos, doing so shows you are a go-to guy and a helper. However, you could also use the poison to eliminate the group of people who politely asked you, which shows you are a jerk. Doing so may warrant a visit from a group of people who don't like what you did and put a bounty on your head.

Good/Bad choices builds character and what kind of person you are. Tied in with all the 4 major factions to join, creates a deep experience allowing the Courier to be anyone. My issue is simply the lack of truly devastating actions to take against a faction. Not necessarily violent things like killing children from the NCR, but something to hit the faction so hard that Kimball out in California felt it.


I agree somewhat on very small things like dealing with the Chupacabra at the McBride Corral, but I'm talking about bigger things. Although having some smaller things to screw up is always nice, like sabotaging REPCONN rockets. There is no reason to sabotage them, but it is just fun and builds character.

And what happened to being a Slaver?

That was so awesome in FO2/FO3! I wanna get my slaver face tattoo!

I had high hopes for an expanded slavery questline, but unless I've missed something, there really isn't one.

Even though an army of slaves is a main faction, it seems like they toned done some of the slavery stuff compared to other games.

When first playing fallout I was kinda shocked that slavery was such a prominent thing in an RPG and it kinda made the fallout universe seem unique. I remember that random encounter were that bounty hunter is chasing down that slave (FO3) , I was blown away wondering what else the game had in store for me.

Some how I feel those moments are missing in FNV.

Ratt:I agree, when I met the Legion I assumed I could make an honest living selling people.

I remember in F3 I had a group of people approach me and try to avenge some guy I enslaved.

Sound like Stupid Evil to me. :shrug:

But yes, bigger things should have more... Less moral options to them.
But still, never "evil". Rather have more choices ranging from several shades of gray.
All options should give the player a reason for doing them.

OR how about a compromise:If evil choices can't be as prominent as they were in F3, good choices should be removed to a "shade of grey" like Gabriel said.


I find it is alot easier to be good in this game.


Don't get me wrong though, I still thoroughly enjoy good characters, I use them a lot.

Yup, if one needs to base it on black and white terms then the game is very bias towards good.
But since I don't base it on that it's not something I really care about.
Some more "less moral" options would've been nice though.
Maybe talk to that crazed nightkin in Novac and tell him that Tabitha said to "fear" the battle cattle making him run away in terror and get killed by Tabitha or maybe direct him to Jacobstown or maybe when you talk to him he tells you he's tired of the battle cattle's noises and you can tell him about "battle cattle in disguise"(The townsfolk) in exchange for Tabitha's room keys (When the both of you have exchanged this information he will start killing one citizen of Novac every day until all area dead or until the player kills him).
Yknow, "more" options.
But I don't really care for black and white options so that the game is bias towards good isn't of concern to me.

Lol, yeah what's happening to the fallout universe when a PC can't raise a family on a modest slaver's salary. :hubbahubba:

I think that there -should- be moral decisions, and that there is EVERY reason to base them on a scale from 'black' to 'white'... or hell, maybe a scale of 'magenta' to 'indigo'!


The fact of the matter is, that what you call 'stupid evil' and unimportant... is actually a VERY large portion of what it takes to ROLEPLAY as a psychopath. My particular psychopathic character actually -does- look a lot like a 'stupid evil' character... because that's largely what psychopaths do. He has no sense of forethought into his actions, he's just mindlessly violent and cruel for the sole purpose of being mindlessly violent and cruel.

That should ALWAYS be an option... and it doesn't take a game like Fable to make it one.

If anything, Fable should serve as an -example- of there always being a wicked way of doing things... of the true extend of hatred and violence and cruelty. Because there -are- human beings out there who are mean and nasty and vile and despicable not because they have some enlightened reason... but because they LIKE it... because it makes them happy. And nothing makes -me- happier, than stabbing my friends in the back... betraying the ones who love me... and unleashing all kinds of hell upon the world.

When I play as my psychotic characters, anyways.


You shades of gray folks can take your moral ambiguity and shove it up your [censored], cause I ain't interested!

(Just in case it wasn't obvious... this part, here, is just an example of being a jerk for no good reason other than that I enjoyed it.)

This is what I meant to say. NV gives you reasons to play a greedly, self-serving character. In FO3, you were either the protector of the weak and upholder of whatever or you were an insane psychopath. Why would your character destroy the brotherhood base after risking everything to defend them? There is no reason to do so besides possibly not having a proper mental capacity. In FONV, you have a reason for siding with Caesar or House or even going on your own path besides just chanting "BURN! KILL! DESTROY EVERYTHING!" FO3 handled evil very poorly, NV is vastly better.

I dunno.....planting a dozen mines and bottlecap mines all around the Safe Room at Hoover Dam then blowing up Bear Force One while Kimball was giving his speech was pretty devastating. Boy were they surprised.

Then play a game which allows such black and white nature then? :shrug:

Other than that, playing as a psychopath?
Erm.
Whatever, don't care for being psychotic without a reason.
As long as the "evil" option gives the player a reason for doing it then I'm fine with it.

That isn't handling 'evil' poorly... that's handling evil in only ONE way... where as New Vegas -also- handles evil in only one way...


The fact of the matter is, when stripped of any kind of religious or karmic meaning... evil is pretty much the 'feeling' one gets when faced with ghastly, irreconcilable acts of brutality/insanity/violence/cruelty... and knowing that no human being acting within their 'proper' capacity could do such a thing.

For some of them, this evil is cold and calculated and rational... the self-serving sort you spoke about. That is New Vegas evil.

For others, it's irrational... it's deranged and violent and -spectacular-... it's complete psychosis... and that is Fallout 3 evil.


They both fail, in regards to portraying evil, for not including both of these types!

Fallout games (with the exception of FO3) always have a shade grey, without them is just black and withe morality again

So... lemme get this right:


You want insane people... who by definition behave irrationally... to have a rationale behind their insanity?

You want sane insane people?

MADNESS!

I guess so.
I see no reason to include lol-evil.
Psychopath or not, I see no reason to poison an entire orphanage just cause I have a poison vial in my hands.
Yes, it's evil, yes, it's psychotic.
But is there any reason for my psychotic character to do it?
Not really.
So poisoning them is pointless, even for my psychotic character.
And a psychopath character is idiotic in any of the games.
Why would a psychopath help NCR, House, Yes Man, Caesar, Dad, Lyons, Eden, Overseer, Master or Arroyo Elder?
An insane psychopath character with no rhyme or reason for anything can't logically complete the game.
(S)He'll just run around being lol-evil everywhere.
There's no point in having lol-evil cause being that kinda psychopath makes no sense with the main story. (Possibly Yes Man but that's only cause I haven't finished Yes Man's story yet and don't know how it plays out.)

Most forms of evil are by and large uncompasionate and meaningless.
Cast out by ordinary people not realising what they've done.
You also have crooked and corrupt people that take advantage of those helpless or in need of help.
Followed by vindictivenous and jealousy.
Then the aim to hurt and control others.
Then those that seek to inflict pain as a sixual release all on its own.
Then you have those that inflict acts that are inflicted on them at some point in an attempt to draw attention..
Really the list goes on and on, and will get this locked quickly.

This is like the Sheogorath is not mad enough debate, I want him to be crazy..
"define crazy,"
"hurting people in horrible ways".
"How about the one time someone tried to beat someone to death with a pillow".
"Due to the need to inflict suffering, even when completely happy and not stressed? "
"You want to see that in a game, I don't".

Evil should be an option in games as long as it's handled carefully, but what are you asking for.
Define it as anything other than to be able to kill anyone, as that's already an option..

They nailed my sociopath characters, letting me use speech to manipulate elements of a quest like payment and lying. The problem was, even though I did very evil things - murdering companions/NPC's because they were against my goals, lots of double-crossing, etc. - the fact I completed a quest was enough to boost my good karma. So, at the end of the day, my character was considered a good guy.
Lame.

Don't see why people bother checking their karma really.
If my character thinks FotA are evil and he kills them then the character will be right in his own mind.
So if you considered your character a... "Less moral/evil" guy then he is that to you no matter what some stupid two sided statistic tells you.

What quest?

It's not about the violence or killing, for me...


It's about the OPTION being present, in as many places as possible, for me to do the wrong thing... the cruel thing... the insane, "Why in the hell would you even want to do that" kind of thing, where by people may not die... but they certainly hurt and suffer and anguish for naught. No! Not for NAUGHT!

For my AMUsemanT!

Sadistic Evil is the game for -this- character! I enjoy watching you suffer and die slowly... painfully... and thrive of your humiliating attempts to beg and bribe your way out of my trap. Maybe you're a slave... maybe you're a prisoner. Maybe you're just some poor bastard who was in the wrong place at the right time for me to have some fun. It doesn't even matter whether I like you or not... whether you're good or bad or somewhere in between...

I just want to hear you scream and beg... and then I want blood.


And then, on my next playthrough, I'll be a 12 year old girl who collects teddy bears and children's toys.

Why? Because it's a Roleplaying game... and options mean that I -can-.

Well, I want my character to intercourse her way to the end but I can't do that.
Can't have everything.

I just played a psychopathic route.

You just ignore speech, ignore trade, ignore what people say or do.
You don't care about money or rewards.

You just find ways to kill someone, find a way that makes you feel like ueeuuaugDUAKSVBADKLGV.
Then you repeat it, repeat it, repeat it.

Untill you get bored.
Create a new pc and look at the story, and find something less morbid.

Sure you can!

Who the hell told you you couldn't? You can have everything... you just need to DEMAND it!

Step up and declare to the world that you... you want to be a [censored]... a dirty, rotten [censored]... and if they don't like it, well they'll just have to pay DOUBLE once you're the hoker-queen of the wastes! That's what it means to be the consumer... to be the one whose money dictates what gets done and what gets neglected. You get to say what you want, and when you don't -get- it... you get to be incensed and make a conscious decision whether or not to throw a hissyfit on the forums about why your needs are being neglected!

So take that, Obsidian! You should have let us screw our way through to the ending!

We demand the option! DEMAND IT!

... or you know... else...

I know what you mean, and it makes a lot of sense to look at it that way. But being in a pessimistic mood I must say, if they wanted to put a karma system in, it should at least accurately reflect who my character is.


It wasn't any one quest - I know it looked like that's what I meant in my post - it was the fact that I'd complete quests. Often, even if you screw someone over in caps or double-cross a person in a quest, as long as you didn't pick the blatantly evil murder the quest giver option, you gain good karma.