Genocide

[Grey]

I suppose my briefly spitballed idea has problems, but I would still like to see there be more of a reason to debate our choices, and while rewards (like fewer orc encounters) could come with them, so could penalties. Something for us to actually CONSIDER, instead of doing the game-expedient thing.

I personally find that distasteful. "Dur, killing babies is bad because game tells me it's bad" is not the right approach. It's up to the player to consider his or her actions. If anything evil/selfish deeds should make you more powerful (they tend to in real life).

[PureQuestion]

More powerful? Yes, but that doesn't mean it won't come back to bite you

[Grey]

Why? Many bad acts have been unpunished in history. Even history's judgement is subjective. Was Mao a hero or a mass killer?

Games that employ rewards or punishments for moral judgements ultimately trivialise them. Shove a gameplay imperative in the player's path and they will choose the optimal game choice, without considering the flavour behind it.

[PureQuestion]

I didn't say it will, I said it might.

It always might come back to bite you.

I don't disagree though, that games rarely do it well.

[supermini]

Games that employ rewards or punishments for moral judgements ultimately trivialise them. Shove a gameplay imperative in the player's path and they will choose the optimal game choice, without considering the flavour behind it.

There is a gameplay imperative to clear the orc breeding pits - it's xp and loot, and it lowers the number of patrols. There is no incentive to skip it.

[Crim, The Red Thunder]

Games that employ rewards or punishments for moral judgements ultimately trivialise them. Shove a gameplay imperative in the player's path and they will choose the optimal game choice, without considering the flavour behind it.

There is a gameplay imperative to clear the orc breeding pits - it's xp and loot, and it lowers the number of patrols. There is no incentive to skip it.

Indeed, as he says there's no reason NOT to do it, although the lowered orc patrols matter more then the XP/loot. As it stands, noone makes anything but the 'expedient' choice to eliminate the orcs. Hence, something that makes it bite you in the ass might make people THINK more.

On the other hand, creating a situation in which EITHER choice could work, forcing you to choose where you really want to stand can be a challenging thing, while avoiding having a clearly better choice in gameplay terms. This, of course, is where other games can fall flat.

[Hunter]

Games that employ rewards or punishments for moral judgements ultimately trivialise them. Shove a gameplay imperative in the player's path and they will choose the optimal game choice, without considering the flavour behind it.

There is a gameplay imperative to clear the orc breeding pits - it's xp and loot, and it lowers the number of patrols. There is no incentive to skip it.

Indeed, as he says there's no reason NOT to do it, although the lowered orc patrols matter more then the XP/loot. As it stands, noone makes anything but the 'expedient' choice to eliminate the orcs. Hence, something that makes it bite you in the ass might make people THINK more.

On the other hand, creating a situation in which EITHER choice could work, forcing you to choose where you really want to stand can be a challenging thing, while avoiding having a clearly better choice in gameplay terms. This, of course, is where other games can fall flat.

I mentioned the Ultima series in another thread. By the 4th one, your actions, for good or evil, actually had consequences. It wasn't a complex scheme -- you were expected to be "good" or you couldn't beat the game -- but it did provide something of a template. What you're asking, of course, will be a lot of work; essentially, DG would be creating a whole new game with alternate plot-lines. Don't kill the orcs? You'll need (among other things) a way to gain the necessary experience to beat the final bosses (and a way to reach them in the first place.) You'll need a new plot line, or even several, e.g. kill the orcs, ally with the orcs, return to Maj'Eyal and gain experience there, get involved in a war, etc. That entails entire new dungeons and an entire new series of enemies. But as an idea, it's certainly a fun one to contemplate. Adding layers and complexity to an already complex game would be nothing if not awesome. I suppose the first step would be to see if DG is amenable to the extra work, and the second step is to start offering him concrete ideas and suggestions for how to go about it.

Why? Many bad acts have been unpunished in history. Even history's judgement is subjective. Was Mao a hero or a mass killer?

Games that employ rewards or punishments for moral judgements ultimately trivialise them. Shove a gameplay imperative in the player's path and they will choose the optimal game choice, without considering the flavour behind it.

Quite, which is what the aforementioned Ultima series did. Still, it was groundbreaking at the time. I would suggest this isn't an insurmountable problem. Even if you pick an ethos as being preferable (generally, "good"), you can always have a viable plotline where being "good" prevents you from doing certain opportunistic things with great rewards unless you want to twist toward "evil", and being "evil" has its own difficulties and curses (say, you lose access to stores and most townsfolk will just attack you, preventing you from gaining certain helpful quests or learning certain helpful information.

[ohioastro]

You could make the breeding pits trigger after clearing the Orc Prides, and have the orcs disappear from the end game if you spare them or make the patrols more aggressive if you do (searching for vengeance) rather than less aggressive.

[bricks]

I think the existing system is pretty good. I'd rather the morality be a backdrop, not the focus of the game. I'm not sure who would want to support you in your efforts to reestablish the orc population, anyway. The orcs barely trust each other.

[Hunter]

I think the existing system is pretty good. I'd rather the morality be a backdrop, not the focus of the game. I'm not sure who would want to support you in your efforts to reestablish the orc population, anyway. The orcs barely trust each other.

I think most of us -- or at least me -- are quite happy with the game as it is. We're just speculating on the possibilities. In your example, for instance, there's the possibility of a new orc leader rising up in the tradition of Garkul. I won't be inconsolable if none of this is implemented, but it's all still interesting to discuss.

In any event, it doesn't even have to be about morality, but about the realpolitik that already exists. We have tension between all the races as part of the current storyline, and a chance to alienate various factions (well, just Zigur patrols right now, unless you're an undead and scare the crap out of normally-friendly patrols) is already part of the gameplay.

[greycat]

Indeed, as he says there's no reason NOT to do it, although the lowered orc patrols matter more then the XP/loot. As it stands, noone makes anything but the 'expedient' choice to eliminate the orcs.

Untrue. I usually spare them. I'd rather have more patrols to wipe out for XP and loot than fewer.

[Judecca]

Indeed, as he says there's no reason NOT to do it, although the lowered orc patrols matter more then the XP/loot. As it stands, noone makes anything but the 'expedient' choice to eliminate the orcs.

Untrue. I usually spare them. I'd rather have more patrols to wipe out for XP and loot than fewer.

That doesn't really make much sense when enough orc patrols to kill spawn regardless and you also willingly miss out on 1 boss's (possibly 2 Kra'tor since can pop up there if he doesn't elsewhere) loot/exp. Plus the exp from patrols is kind of mediocre anyway unless you're absurdly desperate.

[Robsoie]

The game require you to be more powerfull and better equipped to maximise the survivability of your character, wiping out the orc breeding camp is helping in doing just that.

Not clearing that dungeon means less experience (usually 1 level, in ToME4 just 1 level can make a difference in the Prides), maybe some powerfull items you'll not have , and the increased annoyance of the orcs patrols (i don't have fun in those ambush battles personnally, so less patrol is good for me)

The problem is that unless you want to self challenge yourself by being 1 level lower etc... by not clearing the orc breeding camp, there's then no alternative, either you genocide the orcs (at least the colony of the East corrupted orcs, as from Farportal exploration you know there are orcs in other even more distant and unknown places) or you're going to have a harder time.

The no choice reminds me a bit about Melinda during the beta a year or so ago, the best gameplay choice was to wait until the demon spawned instead of saving the girl, because killing the demon rewarded you with good items, and so increasing your character survivability, while saving Melinda didn't rewarded you with anything.

Fortunately, after some releases, the Melinda case was solved by having the new possibilities regarding the girl, acknowledging then in the game your action of saving her, even if you didn't get the items from the demon killing, it was a reward in itself.

Now that's probably what ToME4 is lacking, around the gameplay it has built a big world, enhanced it by all those lore text.
But there is a lack of acknowledgement of your heroic or evil deeds in the world, so even if there's no gameplay reward for a specific very good or very evil action, if the game NPC around acknowledged what the played did (or failed) you would feel that your choices mattered in the gameworld even if that choice was doing something good meaning that you're not going to have the most optimised character due to it.

I can imagine by example if you destroy the Prides, proving you're some demi-god like character able to destroy the orcs legion all by yourself, but didn't destroyed the breeding camp , maybe it could influence some orcs in actually trying to get out of their evil ways despite their corrupted nature after what the old orcs did in the camp.
By example learning that the most powerfull warrior that destroyed their whole army alone can still be mercifull toward them despite they tried their best to kill you and murder everyone else for most of the game story.

But that's something you should see happening in the game (a la Melinda interactions) , even if it does not serve the gameplay, it would balance the lack of experience/loot from breeding camp destruction by acknowledging your action and making you feel that not genociding them was a choice that matters instead of just making you lag a bit behind in leveling.

[Grey]

But is not killing them the right thing to do? Clinician Korbek thought it should be an act of mercy to kill the greatmothers. In terms of game world reaction there would generally be positive feedback on the player from the Sunwall and the western races for genociding the orcs. Heck, one even gets an achievement out of it :)

Plus changing the balance so players feel compelled to ignore the area wouldn't help a great deal. I'd rather players do it and feel uncomfortable about it than just bypass the area and its lore entirely. One change is to perhaps reduce the xp and loot from the area.

[Robsoie]

I think a better alternative to "just nerf this, nerf that" would be to imagine a prodigy that could get a condition of not killing the breeding camp, the same as there's a prodigy that involve letting Melinda being murdered.

But to avoid people not playing , that i think is definitively not the way to go, maybe finding some optional quest that would involve finding some "cure" to undo the complete corruption of their race the orcs of old did by doing what they did to their females.
And if the player has followed that path, he would then still attack the breeding camp, and instead of "killing" the females, the text would change to somehow giving them the cure.

So in the end the player would still be able to get the XP/Loots he needs (though maybe not the one form killing the mothers, if the real reward would be to unlock a prodigy) and would still play the game instead of avoiding the breeding camp dungeon.
And would then not get that genocide achievement, but another involving what has happened.

This way the player would have a choice involving gameplay for both : the evil path would be to commit the genocide, rewarded by higher experience/loot while the good path would involve following the cure optional quest , less experience (not killing the mothers and the boss) , less loot (not getting the boss one) but unlocking one of the prodigy.

Now what could be the prodigy is a question for another day