Yep. In fact the main problem I have with always rewarding the "Good" player isn't that it makes being "Evil" less fun, but it undermines the neutral mercenary role.

Sure, some quests can still be given out by super trusting and trustworthy NPCs who give you a little pressie afterward. But I'd like a lot more negotiating deals before hand, characters trying to rip you off and some who just give you a quick thanks for your efforts (who may have to be "persuaded" to show some proper appreciation).

Even if it's just for the sake of some variety.

In Skyrim's Hearthfire DLC we were able to adopt orphaned children and there's virtually no player benefit for doing so. I'd like to see more roleplaying mechanics like adoption that posit the notion that kindness is its own reward.

The children, I love the children. They are my heart.

Variety is nice. Sometimes I want my evil characters to actually suffer for what they've done, and sometimes I want my good character to be tricked by seedy people who uses their kindness against them, or be a bit seedy themselves at times. I also want it to be difficult to redeem an evil character, sorry but I don't think giving ten bottles of water to a beggar should make a person who just massacred an entre town and blew up Megaton a Saint of the Wastes. Just like I don't think a good character taking an unwarranted peak in someone's terminal or calling someone fat should give them Evil Karma.

Really, just don't do Fallout 3's Karma system again. That was screwy.

I agree with the OP 100%. I want the game to oblige me to steal once in a while in order not to starve, or maybe have that guy I saved as an optional side quest turn out to be total jerk, which will make me rethink the decision to save him in my next playthrough.

The Tenpenny Tower quest in FO3 did the part just right in my opinion, with the plot twist that happens when you try to do the right thing. (How do I put spoiler tags btw?)

The majority of missions and such in games you actually get a bigger payout by being a [censored] and not helping them or you save a lot of time by taking the short way to a goal, but in general i hate being that [censored] towards npc's i tried to go all darkside, only game i managed to actually go all out bad was in SWTOR as empire player with my bounty hunter, other games mass effect and witcher i tend to go somewhat neutral some renegade stuff but mostly i tend to be a paragon, and in witcher i tend to let the people keep their coin when i save them.

I think variety is important.

As they say in church if you are never taken advantage of, then you are not being generous enough.

If you want to make sure that everyone who NEEDS help is helped you have to accept that some who don't deserve it are also going to be included.

Just like with the AI.

Some raiders should be really stupid.

Some should be very sneaky.

Some should be cowards.

Some should be fanatics.

I'm looking forward to the the day that they start using the radiant AI in with the side quests and change things up slightly each time you play.

It would be amazing if one time you headed south from Good Springs and Barton Thorn's girlfriend really existed and could be rescued.

They would have to be careful to lay some ground work to clue you in when it might be a con, but talk about replay value.

I love games that offer diplomatic solutions to quests. Such games and choices are offered far too rarely in today's games.

No there was literally a guy outside Goodsprings on Fallout New Vegas who said he needed help rescuing his girlfriend and then after you clear the road of creatures and enemies he betrays you and try's to kill you to loot the area you just cleared for him.

Edit: T'would seem I've been ninja'd by an entire day. Hrmm teach me to just immediately push quote.

True that. I also like games where sometimes being a bit evil is necessary to get the best outcome. For example: Villain tries to negotiate peace, since you know they're likely lying to your face to stall or distract you. You just put them down right there and save a lot of lives since if you would have negotiated it would have lead to more people being killed.

Indeed. I hate how the karma system was so quick to label your actions as a good and bad, and Three Dog ranting on the radio about it even more didn't help either. I wouldn't mind it being removed all together in favor of just having a reputation system like in Fallout 2 and NV.

Really disliked it in Fallout 3 where I would receive bad karma for wiping out the Family who the game seemingly forgot were a bunch of murderous, terrorizing cannibals who think they're slightly more acceptable just because they only murder to just drink the blood. There are different ways to look at this situation but the game flat out calls you bad for not going with the best solution of helping both parties and call that the good decision.

I'd like to be penalized for making the morally altruistic choice. That's the type of world Fallout is,

Say a quest giver sends me on a series of subquests and in a couple of them their is the moral dilemma of pissing off the quest giver by being altruistic or being rewarded by the subquest and the quest giver for being a [censored] bag. The importance of the quest giver and their reaction to your do-gooding could shift people to the other side of the karmic meter or in some instances there could be C. solution to the quest that keeps all parties happy, but is really difficult to pull off and requires a player character with a very niche perk set. Add a couple of those and throw some moral ambiguity, along with the typical goodguy/[censored] options and we're good to go.

rather than a good/evil morality system, I'd rather go for a active(reckless,brave,short-term gain)/passive(wise, apathic. long-term gain) system where it's not about you being a good or evil person but rather how you approach a subject, do you wait for an opportunity or do you take it the moment it presents itself, do you consider your actions on the long term or short term? that kind of system would be interesting to see.

I really enjoyed the mass effect system. Paragon renegade type thing. There were even renegons and paragades. Sort of mix agression/passion/calculation/empathy type characters. Altough i do enjoy being evil like Emperor Palpatine quite often.

I was going to say something like this, but much less eloquent, lol.

This is exactly it, though. There is typically more gained by being "the good guy", just not in Hollywood movies where the hero must overcome oh so much evil and fight the good fight of correct moral choices before he can prevail and get nothing but a "thank you'. The good guy route always wins in the long run and there's really very little point in being straight up evil.

The key to that statement is the "default" game.

Yeah - I stopped being violent by stopping to play the game (sorry, hate games offer you dame nice weapons and skills etc. to kill your enemies and then tell you not to or - as was done here - punish you for not listening to them)...and I love the premises of that game - same for the latest Deus Ex (human revolution)...they give you guns and skills and then give you more XP if you don't kill anybody?...damned spoilsports!

I agree though that being "evil" should net you some direct benefits, but IMHO the game should bite you in the ass (a little) in the long run (while rewarding a good guy for his doing later)

greetings LAX

Should have been an option to turn them into slave labor in a mine or in a field or something lol. "I rescued you from the streets. I gave you a bed and a safe place to sleep. You will repay this kindness by earning your keep."

I find for me it's hard to play anything but good really, good with some semi questionable behaviour lol. Playing evil as a character vs. Evil doing the quest lines is hard. You can be as evil as you want I think but would it affect completing the game?

The problem is morality is largely subjective based on the context. Not to mention, players don't like to be punished for making a particular choice. If the game is constantly punishing someone for being "good" while rewarding others with extra items and faster solutions for being "evil," it leads to an imbalance. I rationalize "good" players getting rewards along the lines of karma. Those who inevitably go beyond the call of duty, act selfless, and do things the harder way will inevitably get some sort of payoff or gratification in the end. Now, it's up to the developer to determine what kind of gratification that ultimately is.

Whether you are "good" or "evil," it's all selfish to a degree. People gain a personal sense of satisfaction out of bad or good choices. People at their very core are self-interested creatures and are biased based on our instinct to survive. I agree that there shouldn't necessarily be a symmetric split where good guy gets good guy items and bad guy gets bad guy items, but being "good" shouldn't lead to a painful and unenjoyable experience either.

I had to go and make a completely new game to get the trophy for blowing up Megaton. I just can't be bad.. And in Skyrim, there was a quest where you had to EAT HUMAN and that is so repulsive and sick to me I had to make a non-human character to do it! LOL

There should be consequences and rewards regardless of what choices you make. Clearly those should be different for someone who used diplomatic solutions than evil ones. And even different still from those trying to walk down the middle of those moral dilemmas.

Personally I loved the reputation system in FONV.

I agree. Although, herein lies the issue of trying to figure out what kinds of rewards and consequences are appropriate based on the diverging choices. I think these are issues that really have to be resolved on a case by case basis where BGS takes each quest and determines what kinds of rewards would be appropriate. Evil choices will always typically lead to more direct and easier resolutions while good choices require more effort and perhaps some sacrifice. It's ultimately a judgment call for BGS as there is really no way of pleasing everybody with how "good" choices and "evil" choices should be represented. I'd actually prefer to have varying shades of grey leading to a more realistic and thought-provoking experience, rather than save the kitty or kill the kitty. Moral ambiguity, in my opinion, would make more sense in a post apocalyptic environment where survival and desperate likely outweigh rational behavior and what is "right" from "wrong."

The worst part in that game was that the non-lethal way was far easier than the lethal way. The non-lethal takedowns were completely silent no matter if you picked a guy off the ground and slammed him hard on the floor two feet behind another guy and the non-lethal weapons were all instant and bypassed armor entirely. You could run around and knock how the heavy armored goons with the stun gun or the dart gun and save a lot of ammo compared to using the revolver or machine/shotguns. The only good weapon was the 10mm with the armor pen upgrade.

It doesn't matter to me if they punish me or not I'd still play the good guy, it's just who I am.