[Radek]

Bungleau - I can sign each of your words. Complete agreement.
I also consider the M&M way a good possibility but it's not "bullet proof". For example, step aside and cast Armageddon. Nothing will happen to you, no reputation consequences, no closed doors and so on. IMO, the best solution is not giving the player a possibility do do such things at all. You cannot attack an innocent villager because you haven't the attack option at him. Clicking the villager will initiate a dialog. Another inplementation consists in making innocent bystanders "transparent". Your effort with your sword results in "hitting air" and is ignored completely. No consequences of the effort but also no result. Naturally, the same happens to your spellcasting and ranged weapons.

Jsalsb - Good parenting is almost useless in our world. Our behaviour is determined by our environment and not by our parents. And the ruling principles in our environment are - violence, aggresion, and "care for Number One".
But it does not mean that an ideal RPG should support these principles. An evil path does support them: You are playing an evil hero and not an evil bastard. Your evil deeds are appreciated and not condemned. That's what I consider wrong.

Kakero - I cannot agree. The player who lives the real life and plays the game is the same person. He is accepting (or unaccepting) the same ethic criteria. If he wants to state that he has some character then he cannot help in the real life and kill in the game under the same circumstances.
A game, which does not allow you to behave unethically need not be dull and boring. Being good does not mean being a crystalically pure palladin fighting for Justice, Order, and Law from begining to end of the game. Being good means not doing things that should not be done at all, under no circumstances. For example, murdering without reason, deceiving friends or innocent people, or destroying objects only to vent frustration. It's not a serious restriction.

[ 01-10-2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Radek ]