Personally i would just strip out good/evil choices from dialogs and have it all be action and reputation based, (Treat someone badly and his friends/faction will like you less), in a sandbox RPG you could then have reputation spread as npcs interact with eachother and you could track multiple values per npc. (a NPC might for example consider you to be a good guy to have around in a fight while he wouldn't let you enter his home unsupervised since valuable items often "go missing" when you're around)

I agree, This is the better way of doing it imho instead of getting a global evil or good reputation.
But you still have evil&good choices even with this system because otherwise you can't get negative reputation unless it's with the bad guys you get negative reputation.

It can be really "simple choice" like you're walking a corridor in perhaps an inn and you bump into someone and then thers the choices like..
1. Excuse me, I'll step aside.
2. Get outta my way.
3. *push him out of the way*
4. *move aside and then stick your leg out so he trips over it*

You could make it even more evil if the person that you bump into is a handicapped person or an old lady with a cane lol.

And you can imagine yourself how you could keep building on what happens next after each of those choices.

Maybe the person is an important npc.. or an important npc that will have a big impact on your game later on... and will remember you.

[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1348664133' post='4983959']
Personally i would just strip out good/evil choices from dialogs and have it all be action and reputation based, (Treat someone badly and his friends/faction will like you less), in a sandbox RPG you could then have reputation spread as npcs interact with eachother and you could track multiple values per npc. (a NPC might for example consider you to be a good guy to have around in a fight while he wouldn't let you enter his home unsupervised since valuable items often "go missing" when you're around)

I agree, This is the better way of doing it imho instead of getting a global evil or good reputation.
But you still have evil&good choices even with this system because otherwise you can't get negative reputation unless it's with the bad guys you get negative reputation.

It can be really "simple choice" like you're walking a corridor in perhaps an inn and you bump into someone and then thers the choices like..
1. Excuse me, I'll step aside.
2. Get outta my way.
3. *push him out of the way*
4. *move aside and then stick your leg out so he trips over it*

You could make it even more evil if the person that you bump into is a handicapped person or an old lady with a cane lol.

And you can imagine yourself how you could keep building on what happens next after each of those choices.

Maybe the person is an important npc.. or an important npc that will have a big impact on your game later on... and will remember you.
[/quote]

Ofcourse, choices in dialogs could lower your reputation (or increase/mitigate the effect of your actions), the real point though is that there shouldn't be "good guys and evil guys" in a RPG(thats so damn overdone even though the player is usually placed on the "good" side swapping things around to allow the player to be on the "evil" side doesn't really change anything). Choices are more interesting when the outcome is uncertain and it becomes difficult or even impossible to make a choice that is good for everyone, Conflicts where neither party is clearly good or evil allow for far more interesting choices.

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1348667907' post='4983980']
[quote name='SimonForsman' timestamp='1348664133' post='4983959']
Personally i would just strip out good/evil choices from dialogs and have it all be action and reputation based, (Treat someone badly and his friends/faction will like you less), in a sandbox RPG you could then have reputation spread as npcs interact with eachother and you could track multiple values per npc. (a NPC might for example consider you to be a good guy to have around in a fight while he wouldn't let you enter his home unsupervised since valuable items often "go missing" when you're around)

I agree, This is the better way of doing it imho instead of getting a global evil or good reputation.
But you still have evil&good choices even with this system because otherwise you can't get negative reputation unless it's with the bad guys you get negative reputation.

It can be really "simple choice" like you're walking a corridor in perhaps an inn and you bump into someone and then thers the choices like..
1. Excuse me, I'll step aside.
2. Get outta my way.
3. *push him out of the way*
4. *move aside and then stick your leg out so he trips over it*

You could make it even more evil if the person that you bump into is a handicapped person or an old lady with a cane lol.

And you can imagine yourself how you could keep building on what happens next after each of those choices.

Maybe the person is an important npc.. or an important npc that will have a big impact on your game later on... and will remember you.
[/quote]

Ofcourse, choices in dialogs could lower your reputation (or increase/mitigate the effect of your actions), the real point though is that there shouldn't be "good guys and evil guys" in a RPG(thats so damn overdone even though the player is usually placed on the "good" side swapping things around to allow the player to be on the "evil" side doesn't really change anything). Choices are more interesting when the outcome is uncertain and it becomes difficult or even impossible to make a choice that is good for everyone, Conflicts where neither party is clearly good or evil allow for far more interesting choices.
[/quote]

Yep, I am agreeing with you man ;P
Well, I think it should be possible to know in some cases that a party is clearly evil.
Some people just simply get joy when they do harm to others... they know its wrong but its fun.

Like in that scenario i made... my reputation with that guy would decrease... a lot.
and then maybe he would go sit down at the bar and get a big ale and talk to other patriots and then he mentions what an asshole i was who pushed him out of the way and threatened him. So my reputation can increase with more people..
The more evil stuff u do the more ur evil reputaion spreads..
maybe he or some of the patriots he drinked with see u in the city later and then they let others know "oh theres that asshole"
slowly ur evil rep is growing in the whole city for that.

So the more evil stuff u do the wider farther ur reputation goes.

How would I not know what to outcome from my action is?
If I say something rude then I know what kind of things i can expect depending on who i say it to.


theres always gonna be evil netrual and good simply.. no matter what kind of reputation system you use.
either you say/do something nice or you are rude/careless or just like causing havoc.

I think you have to give an example scenario to explain what you mean..
I'm not sure what exactly we're talking about tbh lol.

So more closely to the original topic...

What if you had an RPG, or any game really, where you play as 2 different characters, alternating between them on each level.

Say on level 1, the player makes the first character push over a box to cross a gap.
Then, on level 2, the player has to make the second character save someone who will be crushed by that same box being pushed by the first character.

This would could be taken to more extremes where the player is only shown part of a story. Such as character one is tasked with killing a goblin while the second character needs to collect the food the slain goblin was taking back to his starving family.

Essentially, creating situations that are seen as good acts, only to see them in a different light on the next level. This would help to illustrate that good and evil characteristics are just a matter of perspective, which I find pretty dang interesting...

But I agree with a lot of others above in that if the game play is adequately fun and compliments the story, "good" and "bad" players both enjoy the game regardless of the characters alignment.

A good reference for this type of good vs evil play is in the new shooter Spec Ops: The Line.
I have not played it myself, but it seems that the choices you make in the game are neither right or wrong.
And each choice has consequences that effect the story and game.

I think this style could be adapted to work with RPGs really well because the player does not know all the outcomes up front.
In my opinion, having obvious outcomes(i.e "you get gold for killing this person and a friend if you don't") to all decisions makes the choices really boring and tailored to good and evil.

A good reference for this type of good vs evil play is in the new shooter Spec Ops: The Line.
I have not played it myself, but it seems that the choices you make in the game are neither right or wrong.
And each choice has consequences that effect the story and game.

I think this style could be adapted to work with RPGs really well because the player does not know all the outcomes up front.
In my opinion, having obvious outcomes(i.e "you get gold for killing this person and a friend if you don't") to all decisions makes the choices really boring and tailored to good and evil.

I'm gonna need an example still though to understand what you're talking about exactly.

You can't expect me to buy that game and play it just to be able to continue this discussion..
Although I will definitly check that game out..

So more closely to the original topic...

What if you had an RPG, or any game really, where you play as 2 different characters, alternating between them on each level.

Say on level 1, the player makes the first character push over a box to cross a gap.
Then, on level 2, the player has to make the second character save someone who will be crushed by that same box being pushed by the first character.

This would could be taken to more extremes where the player is only shown part of a story. Such as character one is tasked with killing a goblin while the second character needs to collect the food the slain goblin was taking back to his starving family.

Essentially, creating situations that are seen as good acts, only to see them in a different light on the next level. This would help to illustrate that good and evil characteristics are just a matter of perspective, which I find pretty dang interesting...

But I agree with a lot of others above in that if the game play is adequately fun and compliments the story, "good" and "bad" players both enjoy the game regardless of the characters alignment.

It sounds like an agreat idea but it out of top of my head it feel it's gonna be hard to make a game out of it.

You can't expect me to buy that game and play it just to be able to continue this discussion..
Although I will definitly check that game out..

True as I do not own the game either.

And each choice has consequences that effect the story and game.

I was wrong here in the fact that it does not effect the story/game directly but what the story means. See this review here. I think it does a pretty good job of explaining the game.
The important part is that it brings up the idea of no right or wrong. This creates an emotional conundrum because there are consequences for everything regardless of the choice you make.

Again I think that the important thing here is subtlety because when you make the choices good or evil it makes the player feel obligated to choice a side where if you just offered choices with no obvious good or bad it makes the player rely on what they would do in the situation. I think this pulls the player in to the story more and makes the story feel more believable.

So more closely to the original topic...

What if you had an RPG, or any game really, where you play as 2 different characters, alternating between them on each level.

Say on level 1, the player makes the first character push over a box to cross a gap.
Then, on level 2, the player has to make the second character save someone who will be crushed by that same box being pushed by the first character.

This would could be taken to more extremes where the player is only shown part of a story. Such as character one is tasked with killing a goblin while the second character needs to collect the food the slain goblin was taking back to his starving family.

Essentially, creating situations that are seen as good acts, only to see them in a different light on the next level. This would help to illustrate that good and evil characteristics are just a matter of perspective, which I find pretty dang interesting...

But I agree with a lot of others above in that if the game play is adequately fun and compliments the story, "good" and "bad" players both enjoy the game regardless of the characters alignment.

That could probably work really well as a short flash platformer. (Seems like something a good writer could turn into something interesting without requiring very complex gameplay)

[quote name='glhf' timestamp='1348684930' post='4984061']
You can't expect me to buy that game and play it just to be able to continue this discussion..
Although I will definitly check that game out..

True as I do not own the game either.

And each choice has consequences that effect the story and game.

I was wrong here in the fact that it does not effect the story/game directly but what the story means. See this review here. I think it does a pretty good job of explaining the game.
The important part is that it brings up the idea of no right or wrong. This creates an emotional conundrum because there are consequences for everything regardless of the choice you make.

Again I think that the important thing here is subtlety because when you make the choices good or evil it makes the player feel obligated to choice a side where if you just offered choices with no obvious good or bad it makes the player rely on what they would do in the situation. I think this pulls the player in to the story more and makes the story feel more believable.
[/quote]

Hmm, That review doesn't help too much..
But I think I understand.. It's also easier I think to make that kind of choices in a game like that.. realistic warzone game.

Like for example..

Finding some civilians..
1. Die trying to protect them
2. Leave them to die.

I don't think either of those are really evil..
I guess 1 could be considered heroic but not really.. it's just unintelligent and foolish.
I think a intelligent but not evil choice would be number 2.

I think choices like this would be boring... I still wouldnt feel like im doing anything evil/twisted/badass things.