Ah, but all you've done, there, is create a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy.

By my proposal, Karma only applies to those actions which either positively or negatively affect a living being. (Negative Karma being awarded for negative actions, positive for beneficial actions, and all others having no affect whatsoever.) And here's where you'd made an incorrect assumption, I think. Karma, as it is only concerned with positively or negatively affecting living beings, is unconcerned with cannibalism. (Your karma would remain unaffected by eating the flesh of a dead body.) Killing someone to eat them, yes, would be a "bad Karma" action - but it would not be the intent to eat them which made it negative Karma, it would be the act of killing him, itself. Eating someone who is already dead would be a neutrally karmic action. (ie, killing someone and then eating them would have the same negative karmic repercussions that simply killing them would give you - there would be no difference, as the only pertinent act would be the killing.)

"Right and wrong" don't come into it if we're dealing with objective facts, after all. There is nothing subjective about negatively or positively affecting a human being - any one action is either one, the other, or neither. And thus, there is no room for misconceptions or differing opinion if we reduce to the most basic of binary considerations. At this level, the game isn't judging you as if it were some opinionated parody of conscious thought - it's simply collecting data, which over time and given a properly large data set, would give a fairly accurate general view of the sum of your character's actions. (What exactly Karma would affect is a whole other matter - my posts are getting long enough without going into that can of worms, yet.)

With Tranquility Lane, you bring up a good point - though once again your implication about my stance is incorrect (though perhaps I didn't explain myself all that well previously.)

That is a tough one. Personally, I'm a big fan of these sort of moral dilemmas in roleplaying games, which make you think a bit about what the "right" thing to do would be. (Harold, and The Pitt being two other examples in Fallout 3 that I found to be compelling examples of this.) A lot of times, these cannot be reduced to a binary and objective equation (which is exactly what makes them "moral dilemmas" in the first place.) What I find is that the concept that I can make a choice in these scenarios and then have the game tell me that "no, you picked the 'wrong' answer" takes away from the very point of having these dilemmas in the game, in the first place. The whole idea behind presenting the player with these choices is that it is a murky subjective with no conclusive answer.

In those cases, I think it would be best for the game (and Karma) to just stay out of it. Just by playing the game and playing the role you've created for your character, you're going to accumulate a history of karmic choices - more than enough that there'd be little need to get bogged down into these pre-set, scripted scenarios that are put there specifically to make the player question their choices.

Lastly, you say
Actually, that's not true, either.

Specifically, with my proposal, you would be able to do that. If you're positively affecting more people than you are negatively affecting (literally, the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few,) then you'd certainly be able to remain "good" while working for "the greater good." You wouldn't necessarily be as "good" as the "good guy" who was able to do good things without also sacrificing his ethics, of course - but I think that's kind of the point, isn't it?

Besides, you're citing as a problem one of the things that I think could make a good Karma system compelling. The best "evil" villains don't think they're doing bad things. They actually think they're the good guys! A character with low or negative karma who does so by doing things he think is "right" would be the manifestation of that sort of character - ie, "Chaotic Good."

Sorry, I did make an assumption. But the thing is, moral ambiguity is what makes these games more fun and there should be more of it. With what I understand, your "ideal karma system" only affects how you treat people physically. Because this system is so basic and simple, it can't possibility judge your actions for these moral dilemmas. This leaves a ton of quests having no karma gain/loss and in the end, it comes down to whether you murder/steal or give to charity. This is the black and white system I was talking about. If it comes down to this... then one of two things happen.

1. Most the quests you do and things you say have no effect on the karma meter at all. This makes the meter inaccurate and also makes it a pretty much a useless novelty.

2. The karma meter judges ALL your actions and accurately. All quests are designed with karma in mind and the game is very black and white.

Both systems are flawed and in the end, getting rid of karma will benefit the Fallout series. :fallout:

Quests would ideally be designed around both at once... Your PC might get the quest due to the unique combination of Karma and reputation; and have parts of it play out differently because of that combination.
Variation of the two is a good thing, and could work to prevent such black & white situations as the "Dudley Do-Right" hero version or the "Snidely Whiplash" bad guy version (unless that's who you are role playing).

the karma system is fine, and obsidian is bringing back the reputation system, so its gonna be fine, FO3 was an awesome game, it had big flaws but the karma wasn't one of em, it was fine, there are other areas of the game that needed working on like the skill, special and perk system, thats a far bigger area that needed adjustments.

Just to re-iterate (and move on):

I think with the reputation system making a come-back, most NPC interactions could be decided by rep (since obviously, that's a much more realistic way of determining things - different NPCs will care more about your specific actions, and less about your overall "good guy/ bad guy" score.) But I do think there's potentially room for a Karma system to work alongside that. I think it's entirely possible to reduce karma-influencing actions to only those for which there's a clear black and white interpretation (and in general, I think there's plenty enough of those available in any RPG to provide an accurate data set to represent your character's overall impact on the world.)

Sure, you can always argue that "well, my character thinks that killing everyone in the Wasteland is actually a good thing because of so and so," but when you get right down to it, there's plenty of actions for which we can all agree as reasonable beings are either hurtful or helpful to specific people. If you're roleplaying a character with a skewed sense of right and wrong, they're still making actions that are decidedly one or the other - even if they see things differently, a character with negative karma who thinks they're good is specifically that sort of character in the first place. So I don't see an paradox, there.

And of course, there's always those quests which are set up in such a way as to be purposefully ambiguous (and we all know of any number of examples to be found in Fallout 3 - Harold's fate, the Pitt main quest, Tranquility Lane, just to name a few.) Assigning karma penalties and rewards for those actions simply takes away from the whole "point" of those interactions. I think we're better off just leaving most of those decisions as "karma neutral," regardless of how you pick.

But moving on, I think the more important question is "what would Karma influence, if NPCs are going to care more about your Reputation than anything else?" And here's where I think it gets tricky, because obviously you don't want to have a game mechanic implemented just for it's own sake. If it's not integral to the experience, then chances are you're going to better off not having it in the first place. I think a potential angle for the Karma system would be for allowing the game itself to respond in a general way to what sort of character you're playing. Do enough good deeds, and you'll notice that people overall in the Wasteland are doing better for themselves - accrue enough negative Karma and you'd start to see the reverse of this.

Exactly how that would manifest in-game, I think, is where it would get tricky. I think it would work best as something very subtle - something you might not even notice unless you've already played through game taking the opposite route with another character. And the real trick would be making sure that any bonus or penalizing effects would balance out equally - so that no matter your karma level, it's only changing the way that you approach the game, and not giving a clear-cut "better" path to pick overall.

One thing I had originally thought of was simply offering the player more missions of a certain type depending on their karma level - which would represent "evil" characters being more able to find those sorts of missions. But again, that's probably something better left to the Reputation system. What I have in mind at the moment is more of an unformed concept - not entirely sure just how it all would work. Basically what I have in mind is something along the lines of how at the end of an RPG like this, you see the outcome of your actions - only with Karma you might better be able to see an overall picture of how you're affecting the world around you - for better or for worse.

@nu_clear_day: Even though I still believe the best way for improvement is to get rid of the karma system completely, what you suggest is still an advancement of the Fallout 3 system; a great one at that. I guess I'm being over ambitious by wanting it removed so suddenly and I'm okay with taking one step at a time. :wink_smile:

Okay, it's been a while and I've had a while to finish Fallout 3 and step away to do other things. Not to long ago I ran across this youtube video and I think he explains my argument a lot better than I do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_KU3lUx3u0

The whole video is interesting and relevant, but skip to 3:05 if you must.
To hear more stuff by this guy, go to escapistmagazine.com and search up Extra Credits.

Wow I can't believe I missed this thread.
Yes oh my god yes remove that crap.
I'd rather have Fame and Infamy in place along with reputation.

YESSSS!!! Some FINALLY agrees with me!

Nope, i want my karma in my fallout games, along with reputation, (and Feng Shui :B)

I dont care what other games have to say about morality, but Fallout have this since the first game, removing it now could be a bad idea, without this, i dont feel like a bastard, i want to be a evil person, but with respect and no fear

The original Fallout games used karma as a meter to determine how characters with different levels of morality will respond to you. A person with low karma would have trouble befriending a saint, but still can do so by persuasion. It would work the same way when dealing with a criminal. The villain gets a shady vibe from your evil character and thus feels more inclined to engage you in conversation. This gave the players more options to be good if you have a positive karma and more options to do evil. You could always switch sides at any time, and if your character is persuasive enough you could have the option to do evil or good at any time. This makes sense to me. There are plenty of sadistic killers who successfully hide their darker nature and fit in with their communities. Only very charismatic and intelligent people could do that. Someone who is uncouth and not very bright would have a hard time doing this because he would not hide the deeds well and won't be able to misdirect accusations. It would work the same with a dictator. In the end the suave genius will have more opportunities to do evil since of his ability to gain trust.... then backstab! The same suave genius who instead works for the greater good will be able to foil more evil plots due to the ability to gain a criminal organization's trust and whatnot.

I am probably just rambling on, but that is what I liked about the original fallout titles.

-Good post. Good read.

However there is a few problems with sticking with reputation only.

Most of my toons are "Lawfull evil". The smart kind. That means that I am basically impossible to distinguish from the "Lawfull good". To the casual eye and even to most but the most intrusive and fanatical observers I would for all appearances seem like an upstanding and honorable citizen. A good leader and a man of law tempered by mercy.

That I used my reputation as a smokescreen and had a hidden agenda would be next to impossible to discover. I would do things, not out of the goodness of my heart, but because I would gain power, leverage, and protection from the community should anything ever blow up in my face or should my enemies ever come knocking at my door.

I wouldn't be a good "lord" or "shepard" (in this instance New Vegas) out of benevolence. I would do it to be able to draw on the stupid, inbred peasants and my ability to send them off to their deaths on some idealistic crusade that would bascially merely be a smokescreen for my lust for power. I wouldnt be chairtable or fair to the citizens of vegas out of altruism or compassion. I would do it because it would be much easier to get my plans moving with them at my feet and at my back rather than at my throat. I would mask any atrocity I felt like committing, any grab for power or for expansion with a serene face and a front of concerned benevolence.

Primm under attack?
"Sure, we must free the poor citizens of Primm. The fiendish powder gangers are murdering our fellow human beings, [censored] the daughers , enslaving the children and torturing the parents of our defenseless sister city! It is not only just to go there and remove this... plague on decent folk. Its our civic duty and inded our moral duty to help end this oppression."
I wouldnt mention that I myself had made a deal with the powergangers through some pawn that they should attack it. I wouldn't mention that I had gotten the sentrys and guards drunk on the night of the invasion. And I certainly would not mention that I would equip my "peoples militia" with weapons that were primarily area of effect weapons causing significant civillian losses or deliberately leave them so untrained in tactical small units training that they would open fire on anything. Besides: Securitrons are expensive to repair and the sheep are plentifull, and if someone asked why Id not send in the securitrons I would say that the securitrons were mere machines and might cause significant unintended civillian casulties.

Ofcourse Id then use that to my advantage too:
"The attack on primm was a success and the peoples milita of vegas showed not only the powdergangers but indeed the entire mohave that New Vegas takes an active role in protecting its fellow human beings. I am proud to be a New Vegasian today. Proud to be your humble servant. Today Vegas showed the mohave that we are ALL humans worthy of respect. We ALL have rights. We ALL have a duty to stand up for humanity and help our fellow man"

"Unfortunately many citizens of primm died by the hands of the powergangers before we could muster a counterattack. And despite every precaution and the best intentions many more died in the liberation. But we will not abandon Primm. We will not leave our Mohave family to starve and die! No. We are New Vegasians. We persevere! We prosper in the face of hardship and even death! We will secure prim with our militia. We will rebuild what was lost in Primm and we will restore it to glory, making it even more shining than before.”

By this time the people would be completely oblivious to the fact that I had more or less just annexed Primm, killed off most of its civilians (primarily whatever leadership there might be there) and occupied it. The sheep would clap their hands, cheer and whip themselves into a selfrightchious frenzy over the goodness of themselves, the survivors of Prim would kiss my feet and the rest of the Mohave would see me as a glorious, just and resourceful leader. And in all reality I am merely despot hellbent on conquest.

No one would be the wiser. And that’s the problem. If we stick with reputation solely that really doesn’t reflect the person behind the actions. Karma is troublesome, sure, but it adds that “inner compass of morality” that reputation can never reflect. Karma adds another dimension. With reputation only we are talking “all black or all white”. With karma we have several shades of gray even if we cannot and prolly never will be able to get a game that includes the full color spectrum.

Karma has its flaws. But it adds a dimension to the game that is hard to get any other way.

I hate the karma system. I support its removal.

The android in question is a sentient self-aware being, not a dumb automaton. "The android belongs to Dr. Zimmer" means nothing in this context. Returning the android is like returning a slave to slavery. Yes, evil.

I personally think that without karma the games feels a little empty, then again, i want an evil character but with respect (evil karma, high reputation)

Is like removing the aligment sistem in the Dungeons And Dragons based games

So... enslaving a mentally challenged person is ok?

Well it depends on how to view it, but I won't get into that.
Instead, I'll argue that it's a bad thing that the game's decisions are so easily categorized as 'evil' or 'good'. It leaves no room for moral ambiguity and that makes the game boring.

nah, i like the karma in the fall out games. Makes it more believable

How?

That guy is so right Replace the Karma "Good <--> Bad"-meter with a color wheel or a graph, and not show that you get +5 closer to being a saint or +5 closer to being a devil.

Another thing I though of. Killing is bad, aight, so it should always give bad karma whoever you kill, Fiend or Goodsprings civilian, and it might give you a Karma ranking of "Murderer" but you are still a "Helper of the weak", so kinda like how the Reputation system works (I think it uses a graph) like with "Merciful Thug", where you do alot of bad to a faction but sometimes also good, or "Good-natured rascal", where it's vice versa. Still, Karma would be nothing with an effect in the game, it'd just keep track of yourself as a person if you are good or evil, but everyone else will go after Reputation. I think it could have more impact, like sometimes in dialogue you could get a [Bad Karma] or [Good Karma] option, and some characters might "sense" if you are good or if you are evil, rather than going after Reputation. Like "Don't come with that [censored] to me, I know how you people work, I know what's going on in your sick n twisted head..." or "I don't know what it is about you, but I get the feeling you're a good person... maybe it's those honest eyes of yours"

I like that idea... I also want the reputation system (not simplified) but put infront of you so you don't have to guess, "If I do this for this faction then this faction will be pissed"... Maybe it could say something like:

________( Quest name)

____ wants me to ______ this _____ but if I do that then I might lose reputation with _____

I'd also like there to be different images for different titles (example: White Knight (Vault Boy in a suit of armor with a sword on a horse) or Crimelord (Vault Boy wearing stripped suit and a fadora with a cigar and a tommy gun)) That would be hilarious and awesome!

Wouldn't you kinda understand it from the start, though, if the Kings tell you to go shoot on some NCR troops, that the NCR would dislike you for that? Or if you help Powder Gangers take over Goodsprings with violence and kill their militia, that the citizens of the town wouldn't appreciate it?

Well those are the simple ones actually involving phisically hurting the other faction... I'm talking about ones that will just make things better for one faction without directly harming the other

I dunno if anyone has said this already but in Battlefield Bad Company 1 when you view over the weapon stats they have a round circle with 5 variables around it's sides.
If the weapon had great accurcy then from the middle of this cirle it would point out towards the accurcy variable.
Meaning, the close to the middle it is the worse accurcy it has and the close to the edge it is the better accurcy it has.
What about doing something like that for Fallout?
Have a bunch of variables like "Good Will" which you get points to if you don't accept quest rewards and give money to homeless people and is just a really nice person, then "Psychopath" which you earn points in by eating human bodies and killing civilians for no reason on the street etc, and then "Greed" which means you're all about money, the more you loot, the more you steal the more you ask for better rewards after completing quests the more points you earn.

I think this would be way better than the current "karma" system.
This way you can go "Well I am really greedy but I also have a great tendency to help people in need."

Here's a quick draft of what I mean: http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/5148/nybitmappsbild.png

I like the idea as long as you get titles for different perecntages

ex: 3% Psycopath, 0% and 97% Greed [sorry I can't exactly make a chart;)] would be "Mugger" with the Vault Boy wearing a wife beater shirt with a knife glaring at a fancy rich looking guy...