The Gaming Den

Elennsar wrote:Karma carried too far makes you wonder why anyone would choose the selfish option, because not only is it morally wrong, it is actively counterproductive to their goals here and now.

People choose options with bad karma because they are unwise, because they are unthinking, because they don't believe in karma, because they don't realise it is the option with bad karma, or because they feel that it is the right thing to do, despite the karma.

Regardless, a belief in karma doesn't prevent someone being a hero, even if karma is true. Similarly, a belief in heaven and hell doesn't prevent someone being a hero, even if heaven and hell are true.

No, but the idea that if you die you will be reborn means that giving your life as the last full measure of devotion isn't true.

Similarly, having you be greatly, certainly, and swiftly rewarded for being generous makes it a lot less of a sacrifice - and thusly, you're not really "giving up" anything.

Doesn't mean that there's something wrong with being altruistic...in fact, benefiting your fellow man is now directly lined up with everyone's rational self interest...but its not an act of "I will go without so another does not have to." even to a limited extent.

So, at the end of the day, any rewards for being good and penalties for being bad cannot render being bad purely idiotic (short sighted, fine, idiotic, no) or being "good" meaningless (since there's no reason other than willful malevolence not to be).

Assuming one doesn't want evil idiots and every-good-guy-is-a-saint.

But some karma or heaven and hell or whatever is fine.

Elennsar wrote:The idea that if you die you will be reborn means that giving your life as the last full measure of devotion isn't true.

No more so that the idea that if you die you go to heaven.

Elennsar wrote:Similarly, having you be greatly, certainly, and swiftly rewarded for being generous makes it a lot less of a sacrifice - and thusly, you're not really "giving up" anything.

The example you're complaining about has the reward coming a year later, so it isn't swift. You don't know it will come (assuming you don't read the walkthrough), so it isn't certain. You'll have to tell me whether a bunch of sensitivity is a 'great' reward, but it doesn't sound very wow to me.

No more so that the idea that if you die you go to heaven.

Quite a lot more, actually. Going to heaven, however awesome it may be, still means that you were willing to do everything within your power, even if it killed you and death, whatever awaits is, is not really a desirable consequence.

The example you're complaining about has the reward coming a year later, so it isn't swift. You don't know it will come (assuming you don't read the walkthrough), so it isn't certain. You'll have to tell me whether a bunch of sensitivity is a 'great' reward, but it doesn't sound very wow to me.

Swift enough, given that you also get a bonus now. And given that the ring is otherwise useless (If you don't buy it, this "quest" never comes up, incidently), you get +1000 gold (overall), + some Refinement, + some Sensitivity.

As stated, having a few things like this that may or may not work out so nicely is fine - the idea that because you got a reward you forsake all claims to it being alturistic is, um, extreme, but having "no good deed go unrewarded" is a problem.

That's what bothers me. If you are doing good deeds, having done a good deed ought to be pretty damn meaningful on its own right.

Note: Regarding dying and then being reborn vs. going to heaven, I'm looking at resurrection, not reincarnation.

Reborn is probably a bad word for that, just realized.

Elennsar wrote:Note: Regarding dying and then being reborn vs. going to heaven, I'm looking at resurrection, not reincarnation.

Reborn is probably a bad word for that, just realized.

Yes, particularly given that rebirth specifically means reincarnation as an unborn child. I recommend the term "ressurected" to refer to ressurection.

Elennsar wrote:If you are doing good deeds, having done a good deed ought to be pretty damn meaningful on its own right.

Good deeds are meaningful in their own right. According to the religious beliefs of 80% of the world, such deeds are also rewarded in this life or a future life. Why is it a problem if a game matches those beliefs?

Why is it a problem if a game matches those beliefs?

Having the result for a good life, with all the sacrifices thereof, be worth it is fine...but a large part of that should be "you feel you did the right thing and that was the right thing to do", not that after sixty years of weary drudgery you live as if a king only better for eternity or close enough that it makes no difference.

Paitence as the only requirement for virtue kind of makes the idea that being truly virtuous is a struggle a joke.

So while I'm fine with characters being rewarded and accepting rewards for their heroism, the deed should be done -because it should be done-, and any reward is merely on top of that.

And its pretty easy to take the "good path" when the "good path" is not really more demanding.

Elennsar wrote:

Why is it a problem if a game matches those beliefs?

Having the result for a good life, with all the sacrifices thereof, be worth it is fine...but a large part of that should be "you feel you did the right thing and that was the right thing to do", not that after sixty years of weary drudgery you live as if a king only better for eternity or close enough that it makes no difference.

Are you presenting the circular argument that "we should do the right thing because it's the right thing to do" seriously? WTF?

Who the hell even qualifies as a good person in your bizarro world? I mean, even the Judeo-Christian God presents being good as something you should do or else he will jack you up. The eternal life, 70 virgins, and golden mansions are just added bonuses for behaving in a generally pleasing enough way to not get face-stabbed by God.

And going back to this being a game, if you're not rewarding or punishing behavior in some way, what the hell is the point of even worrying about it?

Are you presenting the circular argument that "we should do the right thing because it's the right thing to do" seriously? WTF?

That IS why you should do the right thing. It is the moral and just thing to do which will lead to a world which people benefit from actual justice and actual peace and actual laws that actually do some good.

Its not because you get 72 virgins or get smitten if you have sex outside of marriage, it is because the ideal world has people behaving morally as part of what it takes to have that ideal world.

And going back to this being a game, if you're not rewarding or punishing behavior in some way, what the hell is the point of even worrying about it?

If you're not concerned with the fact that you are as bad as the barbarians and that is meaning you're doing morally unacceptable things and fucking people over unnecessarily, then that's your problem.

If you actually care about doing the best thing possible for the betterment of the kingdom and the people in the kingdom, then that is the "reward" for being good!

Virtue is its own reward. No virgins and golden mansions in this life or the next necessary.

Elennsar wrote:Virtue is its own reward.

That's really an attitude you can take in any game. I can play Paranoia in a virtuous way if I want to. I'll die a lot, sure, but virtue is its own reward!

Its also an attitude that's generally mocked as being pointless -and- profitless, as opposed to hard but meaningful if you succeed and well, if you fail, you were going to die anyway.

If you want something where it will mean something, just not something that makes you better off, then join the club. But you're not going to get that without it being treated as a good premise.

Elennsar wrote:Its also an attitude that's generally mocked as being pointless -and- profitless, as opposed to hard but meaningful if you succeed and well, if you fail, you were going to die anyway.

If you want something where it will mean something, just not something that makes you better off, then join the club. But you're not going to get that without it being treated as a good premise.

That's the problem, the way you're presenting it doesn't mean anything. Aside from this issue in your circular argument where you don't define what the right thing is, or who has the authority to pronounce something as such, we go back to the main issue that this is a game.

Not many people are going to get too upset about not doing right according to the arbitrary and ill-defined standards of a bunch of imaginary people controlled by their GM, and that is not some failing on their part.

If there is no measure in the game to track how good or evil you're being, why would anyone waste time thinking about it? You used that argument yourself some time ago, why is it different in this case?

Even if you just have something where having a certain number of goodness or bastardry points opens up some unique quests or dialogue options. Also, you have to allow for the idea, if this game is meant to have any replay value at all, that people can make different choices. There doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between good deeds and reward, but there periodically has to be something to reinforce that behavior. Also, can a player perform the proper deeds in your game simply through intellectual knowledge of what you or the game wants as right? Or would you somehow penalize that player for faking it? Is it better to intend good or do good?

That's the problem, the way you're presenting it doesn't mean anything. Aside from this issue in your circular argument where you don't define what the right thing is, or who has the authority to pronounce something as such, we go back to the main issue that this is a game.

You haven't -asked- what the right thing is. Should I take this as changing that to "you hadn't"?

By the way, its something like this:

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe.

No, you don't have to perfectly uphold every one of these.

Not many people are going to get too upset about not doing right according to the arbitrary and ill-defined standards of a bunch of imaginary people controlled by their GM, and that is not some failing on their part.

If there is no measure in the game to track how good or evil you're being, why would anyone waste time thinking about it? You used that argument yourself some time ago, why is it different in this case?

Then they should not play characters who are supposedly doing the right thing by whatever standards. (Which is not the same as "playing this game", I will note. If I have to repeat myself, I'm going to laugh at the persons.)

As for why is it different? Because while there is no mechanical "100 Goodness points", there is an actual definition with an actual meaning to live up to and observable effects of doing so - just because you don't profit doesn't mean nothing happens.

Also, you have to allow for the idea, if this game is meant to have any replay value at all, that people can make different choices. There doesn't have to be a 1:1 relationship between good deeds and reward, but there periodically has to be something to reinforce that behavior.

The only thing there has to be is the fact that if doing good deeds makes the world a better place, there is that. If you want a "better" reward than that, I make no promises.

Also, can a player perform the proper deeds in your game simply through intellectual knowledge of what you or the game wants as right? Or would you somehow penalize that player for faking it? Is it better to intend good or do good?

(In setting) knowing what is Good is not particularly hard. Being able to actually uphold that is - and I do intend to make that part of the game (as distinct from just the roleplaying).

Well, good luck with that. I'm out. I have no interest in a game that's going to preach at me.

Right. Because insisting that someone actually live up to a set of standards other than "your own conscience" in order to be good is so preachy.

violence in the media wrote:Well, good luck with that. I'm out. I have no interest in a game that's going to preach at me.

+1. At least when people do it, you can fuck with them for the lulz.

Roy, if you have nothing productive to add to this, stay out. I'm not trying to make anyone play this or work on this, so if you don't care for it, ignore it.

Elennsar wrote: By the way, its something like this:

To fear God and maintain His Church
To serve the liege lord in valour and faith
To protect the weak and defenceless
To give succour to widows and orphans
To refrain from the wanton giving of offence
To live by honour and for glory
To despise pecuniary reward
To fight for the welfare of all
To obey those placed in authority
To guard the honour of fellow knights
To eschew unfairness, meanness and deceit
To keep faith
At all times to speak the truth
To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun
To respect the honour of women
Never to refuse a challenge from an equal
Never to turn the back upon a foe.

No, you don't have to perfectly uphold every one of these.

(In setting) knowing what is Good is not particularly hard. Being able to actually uphold that is - and I do intend to make that part of the game (as distinct from just the roleplaying).

Ok, against my better judgement, I have to ask: how do you intend to make upholding these ideals hard?

They cannot all be weighted equally in importance. There are two Commandments that are supposedly more important than the other 8, after all.

On the other hand, you cannot fault someone very much for choosing to uphold any given one when two are in conflict. They're still being "good" even if they aren't being "best."

Since you're supposed to lose and fail and die in this game, you don't even have the character preservation angle going for you. Someone (who wanted to be an uncompromising dick) could simply arrange these things into whatever hierarchy they wished and then cling stubbornly to it regardless of the outcome. They may die, but you're putting more focus on being righteous than on succeeding at your objective in this game anyway, so who cares? More holy = more win in this game.

Additionally, and this is a general impression you've given, you're putting more importance on maintaining character integrity than on each player's responsibility to the enjoyment of the rest of the table. Creating an unenjoyable atmosphere by being an uncompromising dick because you're sticking to your character's ideals is just you being a dick to the other players at the table. Whether they play it correctly or incorrectly, this is why a lot of people dislike playing with Paladins.

There's a reason it's called the "straight and narrow," not "really fun."

I think Elennsar makes some good points. The problem is that what he wants from a game isn't the same as what the Den want. There's really no point in trying to discuss it, since if there's a good chance of death, your game is automatically bad and you hate your players.

For what it's worth, I think that Elennsar's take on morality (you can make moral behavior the scoring mechanism, not an instrumental tool) and his intention of end the campaign in death are both fine, and I might play a game on that basis.

Ok, against my better judgement, I have to ask:

Going with my better judgment, I am not answering. Because as displayed below, you don't get what I'm looking for to begin with.

Since you're supposed to lose and fail and die in this game, you don't even have the character preservation angle going for you. Someone (who wanted to be an uncompromising dick) could simply arrange these things into whatever hierarchy they wished and then cling stubbornly to it regardless of the outcome. They may die, but you're putting more focus on being righteous than on succeeding at your objective in this game anyway, so who cares? More holy = more win in this game.

First off, you're not supposed to lose and fail and die. You're supposed to have losses, failure, and the possibility of death.

Second off, being an uncompromising dick is not heroic.

Additionally, and this is a general impression you've given, you're putting more importance on maintaining character integrity than on each player's responsibility to the enjoyment of the rest of the table.

If you're incapable of being true to character and someone enjoyable to play with, either you're playing with the wrong people or they are.

...and his intention of end the campaign in death are both fine

Again, I do not -intend- player character death.

Boolean wrote:For what it's worth, I think that Elennsar's take on morality (you can make moral behavior the scoring mechanism, not an instrumental tool) and his intention of end the campaign in death are both fine, and I might play a game on that basis.

I might be able to get behind some sort of scoring mechanism, though I would prefer that it had some sort of mechanical effect on the game.

Using a Fallout 3 example (because it's what I'm playing right now), I dig that random people come up to you while you're in Megaton and just give you stuff for being an all around great guy. It's usually relatively minor stuff, like an extra stimpack or 19 bullets, but it's still nice to get as acknowledgement. I like that Galaxy News Radio speaks well of you, even though that has no actual impact on the game.

violence in the media wrote: random people come up to you while you're in Megaton and just give you stuff for being an all around great guy. It's usually relatively minor stuff, like an extra stimpack or 19 bullets

Not so easy to do. (Setting thing, there's not much that would be equivalant, though getting a meal and a roof over your head sort of stuff isn't hard at all.)

2)

I like that Galaxy News Radio speaks well of you, even though that has no actual impact on the game.

Easy to do.

What I -don't- want to do is this:

"You saved my daughter! Here, have this magical sword."

But if having the GNR speak well of you is cool, I am completely in favor of that sort of thing. (true before you brought it up, but as I don't consider that a "reward" personally...I don't mind if you or anyone else does, but its not what comes to mind for me)

Yes, virtue is its own reward. Own. Not "only".

What makes being a hero involve sacrifice is not having to say "I can't accept that" to every reward you get offered, but in that your "rewards" tend to be less tangible than the costs.

If you're seeking gain, it is a near certainty (nothing is certain, blah blah) that you will benefit more from actively seeking reward (dur!), but that doesn't mean that being a hero means that you give a quart of blood to the blood drive and as you die of being an idiot no one cares.

If all goes well (if all goes poorly, well, woe to the conquered), your character/s will be sung of and legends will be told of you.

Probably not too much of that in your character's lifetime, but you will be remembered and honored as a great hero, if you are one.

So the question is, what kind of mechanical impact -should- being a hero (or a villain) have on the game, within the fact that "my strength is that of ten because my heart is pure" is not desirable for the primary writer (me).

There is nothing that I have seen so far the would encourage heroics that can't be done in any other game. What I've seen so far is that there is no real motivation to do the heroics as a player. At least not any more than any other game.


You also seem to make a division between "role-playing" and " game". Which seems counterproductive since one facilitates the other.


Then it dawns on me, it looks like to me E6 DnD with Shadowrun's combat system. Hell you could even just do it with EABAnywhere.

You also seem to make a division between "role-playing" and " game". Which seems counterproductive since one facilitates the other.

Not necessarily so. See 4e.

Leress wrote: There is nothing that I have seen so far the would encourage heroics that can't be done in any other game. What I've seen so far is that there is no real motivation to do the heroics as a player. At least not any more than any other game.

And here I was thinking that only this game would encourage being a hero. [/sarcastic]

I don't -want- a game that encourages people to be heroes by bribing and benefiting them. If you want to play a hero and deal with the elements of the game (overcoming failure and dealing with tragedy and loss as well as victory), then hopefully this will work for that.

The fact you can play a hero somewhere else is not a problem.

You also seem to make a division between "role-playing" and " game". Which seems counterproductive since one facilitates the other.

I can roleplay without game rules, or I can play a game without roleplaying elements. There is not necessarily any link at all between them, even in so-called "roleplaying games".

Then it dawns on me, it looks like to me E6 DnD with Shadowrun's combat system. Hell you could even just do it with EABAnywhere.

Not much D&Dlike here. E6 or otherwise.