| rdfs:comment
| - In many games with a Karma Meter, you get extensive bonuses in terms of special moves, bonus interactions and influence with squadmates. But you tend not to get too much for not being an utter saint or bastard. The end result is a character who may have missed out on crucial special abilities, who will not have gained from any morality-related side quests and whose relations and issues with his team will be unresolved to a large extent, leaving a weaker team and an empty, unresolved feel to the game. In short, being neutral sucks. Examples of No Points for Neutrality include:
|
| abstract
| - In many games with a Karma Meter, you get extensive bonuses in terms of special moves, bonus interactions and influence with squadmates. But you tend not to get too much for not being an utter saint or bastard. People who take the middle of the road miss out on all the nice event flags, combat bonuses and team relationships that moral or immoral characters gain. Rarely is it that a game plans a specific path for a neutral character. In many cases this is taken to the extreme with the game not even recognising the neutral path. Equally, if there's an axis for Order Versus Chaos, people who take the neutral path there are not going to be recognised for their behaviour. Game designers almost seem to assume that players will go to one extreme or the other. At the extreme end of this, players trying to maintain neutrality may be forced into doing one good thing and then immediately doing an evil thing to balance it up, for example, saving an orphanage and then killing the orphans inside immediately after they say thank you for saving them to maintain the balance after finding there is no "Ignore the orphans' plight altogether" option available. Many developers don't even make a neutral option, forcing you to go good or evil. Some may even actively torpedo considered ways to go neutral à la Railroading. The end result is a character who may have missed out on crucial special abilities, who will not have gained from any morality-related side quests and whose relations and issues with his team will be unresolved to a large extent, leaving a weaker team and an empty, unresolved feel to the game. In short, being neutral sucks. One of the principle reasons for this is that the number of ways to deal with a problem that aren't obviously "good" or obviously "evil" is enormous. Each player might have their own different ideas about how to go about it, and they wouldn't be happy if you offer 5 choices where none of them are theirs. Even harder is how to effectively communicate what these possibilities are to the player. Nuanced morality options don't work if the player doesn't understand all of the nuances involved. Even with diametrically opposed morality options, some players become confused about what an option really means until they actually press it. Adding nuances to that makes it a lot more difficult to really know up front what you're getting. One way of balancing this up is to make a hero demand an exorbitant reward for his or her services in doing good things, or generally acting against evil but for money and rewards instead of for doing good. Selfish Good, Selfish Evil is a good cure for No Points for Neutrality. Well, unless you want to run a character who does good for the sake of good, but isn't going to turn down extra money while they're at it. It helps them do good works. Examples of No Points for Neutrality include:
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)