Death,Kill, Maim, Destroy...

[skywalker]

What is it, do you think, causes players of CRPGs, to kill everything in sight. It seems to me, that the most popular answer, to every unsolvable puzzle, is to kill something to get what is needed.

I suppose it is partly the fault of the creators of the game, as I believe Wyvern had said that the most powerful, good NPCs should have the least experience point totals, thereby discouraging blatant NPC-abuse. It is funny that some of them are untouchable while others can be damaged and yield millions of points upon death.

If you, as a player of this game, take the Oath Of The Mavin, professed by the Spirit Of Nivius, you should therefore not kill the characters placed in the game to help your quest, to end Lord Cet's possible reign of terror.

C'mon people! This is a "ROLE PLAYING GAME" not a "FIRST PERSON SHOOTER", play the path, play the part, and get something honorable and satisfying by playing the game by the rules of the Oath! If you recall at the very least, Nivius requires that the holder of the Mavin use it "to not profit". I imagine it should not be used until the very endgame verses Cet. How many of us (including me) have used it to to do just that, by killing creatures and profiting in gold and experience. It is more difficult to not use the Mavin in this way, especially after it has been energized in the Black Fire and reached it's full potentional.

The People of The Gael Serran need heroes to solve their most devastating problem and the gamer has the option to kill all creatures good or bad in sight. You should not cave in to the baser instincts of dealing death for advancement.

Though roleplaying in a computer game is practically a joke (though some posters here certainly play it to great advantage) you should try to at least follow the story, act accordingly, and stay in character. Be the heroes you have pledged to be!

Now this game, as it has been created, suffers from countless programming and compatabiltiy issues, but I feel that the biggest issue is with the abandonment of the true path. This, of course was done by way of not programming into the game real punishments, for behavior unbecoming of Heroes At Large. I understand that it is "only a game", but the way we play the game cannot help but reflect who we really are, deep inside.

(Not very funny, I know. Sorry!)

Mark

[Wyvern]

May not have been funny - but I enjoyed reading it!!

While I will hold the game designers to some degree of accountability (and sheer stupidity) for making it "rewarding" to kill the good NPCs I still find it puzzling that so many players do just that. For players going through their third or fourth replay - maybe they're at the point where they just want to try all the things that can be done in the game. In my first game I came upon the Sphinx when I wasn't expecting it and got into a battle and promptly restored my game. The only NPC to whom I would like to do any "damage" is Sebastio - if the game had a court I'm sure I would get off with justifiable npcacide!

Wyv

Very interesting thread
well... at least they made the horse difficult to kill...

now in real life, we killed the rats with the traps,
killed the bugs with the raid, and killed the butterflies with our ongoing cars.....

as for the trees.... think about what's going on with the rainforest...

Very interesting!
I tend to be a "goody goody" when playing. Not just this but we play DnD on Sundays or even other games. I don't know if any of you have played Heroes-3 Shadow of Death but I hated having to play both the good and bad side. The bad is what I am out to vanquish. Even if there were two totally seperate campagnes I would play both sides but both at the same time. I don't think the killing is necessary but if you do need that item a little thieving can go a long way, without killing anybody. Even though that doesn't much appeal to me.

Thought I'd chip in my own .02 here.

Part of what's going on, IMO, is that players of RPGs can be divided (inexactly) into two camps: the role-players and the stat-builders. If you're one of the people who finds role-playing more important, you balk at having your benevolent characters butcher the kindly NPCs, if you feel compelled to create the most powerful character(s) possible, you shrug and take the experience. It's really a question of priorities. Probably a question of temprament.

As far as the "reflecting how we really are, deep inside" part, we all (myself included) tend to make vast assumptions about what's going on when someone is playing a game, without really examining them. I, personally, have seen very little on why people enjoy the experience. My own guess is that, like most forms of "play," it's a kind of "practice" in the same way that cats practice hunting skills. I myself have been guilty of howling in savage glee as a difficult boss monster went down, for example. For the stat-builder, killing all the high-XP NPCs could just be an expression of the desire to create the perfect character, in much the same way you might want to create the perfect painting. For the role-players, it's the desire to act a certain way in unambiguious circumstances (for once.)

I myself have been known to play a game through more than once, the first time as a roleplaying experience, the second as a stat-builder (for some reason I sometimes feel a compulsion to "crush" the game.) And I never represented the different styles in these terms until now. And I've run on way to long already, this has become more like my 5.00 instead of my .02. Sorry

Feel free to disagree if you like. I'd be interested anyone else's take.

[Elara]

I've always found it troubling that most times the only way to advance through a roleplaying game is to slaughter anything that moves. In the old Ultima games, if the Avatar shows up, 10 to 1 most everybody will be dead in short order, for the good of the world of course. All those npc bodies that never disappeared, aagh! Land of Lore III had me weeping over my keyboard once the 4th portal world was completed because Gladstone Keep was in ruins with corpses and lava and evil beasties carnaging everywhere. Made me feel heartsick. But something keeps me coming back for more..

I admit to great satisfaction when I'm able to defeat powerful opponents, Amazoni Mantraps anyone? But killing the good guys (Oakenmir, Erathsmedor..) makes me feel a bit squeamish and shamefaced. Heck I had trouble killing Scabban. (He was so earnest, albeit totally nutso, hehe).

Not to place a moral overlay as to our true natures as people or gamers, but I wonder if playing these games in any capacity, (good or evil), actually keeps us from going "postal" in RL, considering the stress and frustrations of post-modern life. We get to vent and feel incredibly virtuous (or direly evil) without harming anyone. Well, except for not doing our homework, or housework, or feeding the kids, cats, dogs, husbands, the hobo at the door, and not being able to go outside without dark glasses because the light is too bright.

Elara

[skywalker]

Well said Gandelon.

I think the gist of what I mean is starting to become clearer to me as this thread lengthens. It seems that my problem is that the game (or computer) is failing to do its job. Whereas in a table top RPG the DM would not allow the PCs to kill all in sight for the sake of character advancemenrt, not without penalty. Most games do not balk at this action. This causes a breakdown in suspension of disbelief (I think it's the term). You take an oath and proceed to break it, over and over, with no reprecussion. This is the hardest thing for a game's AI to monitor. It would've been much better to leave out such a restrictive Oath and not leave it to the gamer to police his/her party.

So kill all you want, good NPCs or bad, but there should be some kind of adverse affect that causes the player to find a different way to solve a puzzle after they've killed an important NPC in the game. You'd have to find a way around it, when unfortunately, you would need something later on, from the NPC you just offed.

I started a new game yesterday with my same powerful characters and killed the assassin who eventually kills Gareth. Gareth should live and change the whole direction of the game. I don't think killing him has changed anything, somehow Gareth will be murdered by the Assassin and I will get the Quest later and have to kill him again. This game had so many missed opportunities. I still loved it, though.

Mark

I also tend to play the goodie-goodie. I don't kill NPC's unless attacked (usually). I didn't like attacking Scabban at first becuase he wouldn't make the first move. He was just obviously crazy and wanted to dominate the world if left to his own devices. Ok, enough justification to off him.

I don't like the fact that the game is set up so that you must take the Mavin Oath. If you don't want players attacking NPC's then don't make this an option. Don't let a player target an NPC (ie. the horse). Or, have dire consequences.

If you off the Great Oakenmire, then every Druid, Ranger, Elf, Faerie, Dragon, & every other woodland creature will be hunting you down to extract vengence. Create consequences to actions. However, if you do that, you must also program several different options for completing the tasks. If a player wanted to play a truly evil character, then you should be able to off everyone without ever talking & still get all the items you need to complete the game.

Finally, I firmly believe that there are many people in this world that would gladly accept an oath and then turn around and betray that oath or push the limits when it came to personal gain. Not everyone! But there are those people.

Also, I tend to completely separate RPG & fantasy items from reality. I don't believe in real magic & personally, if faced with the choice, I would try to find some other way than to take a poorly defined and potentially damning Oath.

I took a lot of heat from my religious family when I took up D&D so many years ago. However, I did not grow up to be a demon worshipper (no offense if there are any out there) and I don't think real life should emulate a RPG.

I must admit to slaying a poor toad villager from behind when he wouldn't move and I couldn't find any other way around him. But that doesn't mean that I would do such an action in real life.

Sometimes, a game is just a game. And sometimes, people try things in a RPG, just to see if they can. I wonder what that says about the writers and programmers. After all, if they didn't provide for that sort of action, the game either wouldn't allow it, or the game would have yet another bug that causes a freeze or crash.

Sorry, stepping off the soap box now...

well, i kinda disagree. im quite early on in the game, having just finished shurugeon castle, but i look at it this way: some ppl want to play evil parties. they want to finish the game as depraved evil b******s. after all, ive heard that you are offered the chance to side with cet in the endgame, and that the ending is changed slightly if u do.

(just for the record, im not one to play evil parties myself. dont intend to kill any of the good NPCs, didnt even kill lysandra, simply because she wasnt hostile. i just nicked the tusk (yikes! what an element. but at least it wasnt ribbed or anything) off her. in every game ive played (BG2, BG1) where there's the choice of being good or evil, ive always played the former.

but i definitely dont think that the way we play the game reflects the way we are inside. its a bit like saying ppl who watch action movies harbour violent tendencies deep inside. some might, but im sure most dont. i think most ppl dissociate their real life personality from their gameplaying well enough.

hell, the very fact that we play this game might get some ppl on their high horses, claiming that we're instilling violent tendencies in ourselves.

just a counterpoint, mark. but i agree with u that it seems odd that we can violate the oath of the mavin all we want and not suffer any consequences. IMHO, that shouldve been programmed in, along with an alternative way to complete the game, without having to take the oath (and maybe not get to wield the mavin, but then be free to act as evil as u like).

whaddya think?

[skywalker]

I agree the line about "reflecting how we really are, deep inside" was a bit over the top. It's just that you need to look at it from the proper angle. That is, the game doesn't create the behavior, it is the way we are affecting the way we play the game. I don't advocate that violent behavior is caused by the media and I don't support censorship.

It just seems that the glee in which some gamers play the evil side is a little troubling. Hopefully it allows them to expend that energy in a way that is not violent in the real world.

Mark