Death,Kill, Maim, Destroy...

[adam warlock]

just gone 'Toad' on Torin...... ain't I a stinker?

[mortification]

Here is an interesting challenge along these lines:

Has anyone finished the game without using the Mavin Sword to kill anyone but Foozle?

Another interesting challenge:

Has anyone finished the game using characters that are "naked" (no equipment at all)? THAT would certainly minimize the mayhem - quest XP would become of primary importance. And running really fast.

I'm thinking of 6 naked elephants running around throwing spells everywhere...interesting. Maybe toss in a naked pixie just for the fun and challenge...careful not to get too close to one of those trunks...

------------------
(This space intentionally left blank)

[skywalker]

Well Mort,

The naked challenge would work fine if the characters all became monks, since the AC would be lower without the armor. That would be a real challenge before the 6 naked Oomphaz joined the Holy Order of Monks.


Mark

[Radek]

I am trying never to kill an NPC. The reason is simple - the NPC is not here to be killed, it is here to help you somehow. Every time a game forces me to make an exception (the toad villager in W&W, for example), I get irritated.
If I wrote a game, the NPCs would be untouchable and transparent - no punishment when you try to kill them, no hope to suceed in killing them or harming them, no possibility that the NPC becomes an unpassable obstacle in your way.
Ahhh, Scabban. Well, Scabban IS a monster. And the only reason for attacking him immediately is not listening to his speech for the 17th time. Especially in W&W, where dialogues are real pain.

[Malthaussen]

The ethics of CRPG players is a subject worth a dissertation or two... what we do in the dark of night when no one is watching us... what does that tell us about our personalities, our selves? Ultimately, of course, whatever we want it to, since interpretation tells us more about the interpreter than the thing interpreted.

When the fabulously successful Maxis game "The Sims" came out, it took players about one hour to discover that they could torture and murder the characters in the game. Interestingly, when Maxis decided to add "Sim"ulated sexual intercourse in the sequel, the uproar reigned from coast to coast... what does that tell us about US society?

-- Mal

[Black Knight]

I personally try to roleplay as closely as possible to what I believe the npc would actually do. My Paladins don't attack someone who is running away, they give $$ to the church, and they only do quests that are 'good'. My Warlock is not so good, hehe, so I get around it. My Clerics only use maces (not that I have an option) and My mages use no armor. I avoid killing unless they attack. Sturm and Tanis are my two favorite Fantasy characters and they are what I think of when I play RPGs.

I do think there is a place in RPG for Power Gamers, though. People who max out their skills, have unlimited spells, etc. It is an outlet for their natural aggressions, our animalistic nature of kill or be killed, and it is a much better outlet for them than doing it in real life.

BK

------------------

The Black Storm Cloud of the Night
Consort to a Queen
Champion of Truth, Justice and Cloudy's Way
Captain of the Knights of the Golden Dragons
Heart, Mind, and Soul
Offical Wizard and Warrior Questioner
What is this, the Spanish Inquisition?
Ironworks Answer Man

[Radek]

@Black Knight: An RPG is a fairy tale for me. A fairy tale that allows me to take an active part in it. My relation to my characters is highly paternal: I want the best attributes for them, the best equipment and all advantages I can gather for them. But it does not mean that I am killing everything around or destroying everything I can smash. Being strong, or precisely, doing a good work in developing a character, does not mean being an imbecile.

[Sazerac]

Very good points, BK and Radek! Personally, I do believe there should be a way to play "evil" in the game...I mean, with appropriate consequences. Unfortunately, this game was raced too fast out the door, and no retribution (or dark reward!) was set into the game for following a "dark path."

I've never been able to play a dark path. I tried, with MM7, when it gave you the option to follow the "Dark" path. I got a bit of the way into it, and part of it was funny, but when I got the quest to slay the Gryphons, I fell apart. Not the ones that were attacking you, but the tame ones that were flying around the castle. I slew them, then felt utterly sick about it. I abandoned that particular party after that and started another one and took them down the "Light" path. I try to be bad, but I just can't! I will say this, that it was part of MM7's fantastic rendering of the scenario that thus affected me. I don't think any such effect exists when you kill the "good" NPC's in Wizards & Warriors. Hopefully that will be addressed in the sequel.

It all comes down to personal preference. If someone is truly role-playing "evil", then I have no problem with that...my only problem has been "munchkinism", or killing everything around, even if it's completely out of character, to boost your stats to godlike proportions.

But, after all, it is a game, and it's up to the player to determine what s/he is willing to perform in the game.

-Sazerac

[RudeDawg]

I totally agree with you, skywakler. ROLEPLAYING is about the choices we make, and the path we follow, and the consequences. And, it CAN be put into CRPGs (Ultima IV & V both penalized players for playing evil paths. The quest was the pursuit of virtue, and if you went against it, you could not complete the game)

There are hack-and-slash games, there are strategy games, there are FPS, there are CRPGs (RPGs are different). Many will argue that we can play them anyway we'd like, but the intent of the artist is for a singular purpose. I remember spending MONTHS preparing a world for the RPG I was DMing. The group I played with loved it. Several weeks into the adventure, one of the group brought in a friend. He ruined it. For the group. For me. I watched him ruin a creation I had spent months building, and when I told him he had to leave, he called me many a name that I won't type. He claimed that I was stopping his "creative flow". He purposedly, sysematically, tried to ruin everyone else's game, and he claimed he had the "right" to do it. I never played with him again, it wasn't worth the trouble.

In Ultima III, players found that they could kill Lord British. When Richard found out what people did, he wept. (And took out the option in later games. Attacking LB in 4 or 5 got you dead.) A gaming magazine commented that he was taking away people's right to play the game the way they chose. (This was the Quest of the Avatar a game where you were pursuing virtue) His comment was simple: "Don't buy the game."

This is a "copy-and-paste" of a rant I posted on the BGII board, about roleplaying in CRPGs... I think it fits in here...

*The grizzled, scarred, and battered elven ranger climbs up on his soapbox*

AHEM
I noticed a few people actually commending me for choosing to play solo, and within the self-imposed restrictions.

What surprised me was how surprised some were that I choose not to use certain weapons, because my CHARACTER wouldn't.

Quick recap: I'm playing a solo elven Archer (Ranger kit). GrandMastery in Longbows, single proficiency in long sword and katanas. In Tolkien's works, elves looked down on weapons besides these; including axes, hammers, maces, or flails. (I'm flubbing on the katanas, but I think elves would veiw them as masterwork swords) I refuse to use anything besides the longbows, long swords, and katanas in the game.

The most common comment was that I should use a blunt weapon for certain enemies (I'm trying not to spoil) I KNOW this, and agree, some weapons are better suited towards certain opponents. The coice I've made is that my character wouldn't use those weapons.

It's about the ROLEPLAYING, folks. I've read a complaint on these boards, that there are too many powerful weapons. I agree. There are limitations to this type of game, so the designers try to keep our interests by throwing HUGE rewards at us. They also do that because of the diversity of characters that will come waltzing through the game. I doubt that the designers ever believed that you would try to fight EVERY enemy, and find EVERY weapon.

We've all heard aout munchkin tactics, building up god-powerful characters and using the best weapons. Can you imagine a warrior wearing 3 swords, a hammer, a mace, a flail, and a ranged-weapon walking into battle? (In Saberhagen's "Books of Swords" there WAS a character who wore three swords for different uses, but that's another story)

ROLEPLAYING means acting out the role the way the character would. Using tactics the character would. Making choices the character would. This is the challenge. These choices will not always be easy, and will not always be easy to play.

Choose a character class to play because you WANT to try being a dwarven bard, or a gnome thief, or a human pladin. NOT because this character can use this weapons to fight this enemy.

ROLEPLAYING can be the best thing that happens to you, in terms of gaming, if you let it.

Try it. You may enjoy what you find out.

*The old ranger limps off the soapbox, favoring a fresh wound on his leg and grumbling to himself*

Thanks for letting me rant.


------------------

The RudeDawg
Known in these Forgotten Realms as Perin LightEyes
and my girlfriends, Pamila and Pfil

[skywalker]

Extremely well said RudeDawg!

I salute you as a comrade in arms. There are so many gamers out there who miss the whole point of a Role Playing Game. If only Heuristic Park had made the good NPCs worthless in regard to experience points. Then the lure to kill them would be lessened considerably.

Thanx, for the post!

Mark