Why can't people answer simple good/evil yes/no morality questions in games and want to make it about being neutral?

renegade isn't a bad guy, he's just rude

I'd rather not have morality choices at all than it be D&D or nuChristian tier

Why would you need a morality meter telling you what's good and evil constantly

I'm actually replaying DAI right now and I can't agree that Dragon Age did it better. I had forgotten entirely these scenes:
>Iron Bull
>haha inqui bro krem is a girl who pees like a guy and hes a guy if you ask me lol
if you pick anything but neutral agreement or tacitly calling krem a brave hero, you get punished with overwhelming disapprovals
>dorian standing up to daddy
>daddy does nothing but try to be kind and explain how gays are degenerate scum
if you pick anything but sucking dorian's fat tevinter cock and hating his daddy you get punished with huge disapprovals

DAI might have handled some shit okay but it literally rams this shit down your neck 3-4 times in the game, BETTER NOT WRONGTHINK PLAYER, WE KNOW YOU WRONGTHINK AND YOU NEED TO CORRECT YOUR PERSPECTIVE

Roleplaying.
You're supposed to be getting in the head of your character and making decisions from their perspective. They shouldn't know that they have bulletproof plot armour and that the world will always reward them for making retarded but "good aligned" decisions.
That said, I agree anyway, these games would be much better if they let choices have actual reasonable consequences as they would in real life.
Paragon was supposed to be idealistic and uncompromising, while Renegade was supposed to be pragmatic and ruthless. But the Paragon's idealism never costs anything, so it's completely boring, and the Renegade's ruthlessness just comes across as being a dickhead, because you know it's never actually necessary.

The idea that there can only be two points of view to any given subject is a uniquely American way of thinking, and is one of the primary reasons the US is so fucked up.

Attached: 1549711516857.png (402x402, 217K)

They're always retardly hyperbolic. Give me some actual moral dilemmas, not
MUDER BABY OR RAISE IT TO ADULTHOOD

It's not a punishment you get unique dialog scenes where they're pissy at you
youtube.com/watch?v=zNVLaHP5Ukw

He probally is refering to DA:O since the other two are wastes of time

Renegade doesn't cost anything either, there's no advantage in Paragon

>why the US is so fucked up
Assuming you're not from some ass-backwards literal theocratic shithole, isn't the US objectively one of the least fucked up places left on the planet?
Or do you subscribe to a global hegemony run out of Brussels as some kind of 'good thing'?

Not caring a fuck about other peoples’ shitty shit

Because the simple questions are always extremes, what if I want to play a character with more depth than "is the patron saint of kindness and selflness" or "what the media assumes video games turn people into"? Why can't I be a guy who can do selfish shit here and selfless shit there depending on the factors, like an actual character.

better question: why does morality in a game have to be a stupid angel/dick binary system that prevents you from making your character have a more nuanced morality? earlier RPGs that had like a dozen possible responses at a time due to a lack of voice acting were way better at that.

More video games should adhere to the morality chart. Yes it is cliche and overly simple, but it at least makes developers think about characters that could be played.

I didn't mean to imply that it does.
The Renegade is supposed to be doing immoral or jerkish things for the greater good. But there is no greater good, so it just ends up seeming like they're a nobhead all the time for no reason.
The Paragon is supposed to be someone who stands for their ideals and morals above all else, no matter the cost or sacrifices they have to make. But there never is a cost or a sacrifice, so their actions aren't interesting or unusual in any way either.

lack of voice acting for the main character, I mean.

Most of life is extremely grey most actions tend to be beneficial to one party and negative to another. Good and Evil in video games is usually just What any normal person would do vs. what a Retarded Sociopath would do.

It depends, if you kill the rachni in 1 and save them in 3 they turn on you. In ME bad things happen only if you don't have enough Paragon/renegade points or if you're not consistent

These are shit because you decide from the start who you want your character to be and you're never gonna think about any of those choices.

>tfw shooting mordin, wrex and ashley in ME3
no ragrets

Attached: DEVILISH.png (500x567, 69K)

how are the rachni even around in 3 when you're supposed to have killed the last one in 1?

reaper magic

reapers clone them for reasons
those reasons being creative bankruptcy and laziness

Actually it does, by 3 Renegade trashes a lot of his assets.

no it doesn't, assuming you go for a full renegade run

Renegade in ME1 was quite decent actually, it made you more goal-oriented and actually took advantage of the fact that you're a heavily armed war hero.

Sure. There are out of game considerations, but none of them actually apply to the story, so the Paragon/Renegade concept falls apart just the same.
Taking the Rachni as an example, that choice would be perfect for differentiating between a Paragon and Renegade, if it actually worked as it should. The Paragon takes a risk, and releases a potentially incredibly dangerous creature because he's unwilling to kill a possible innocent. The Renegade kills a potentially innocent person, because the possible danger of releasing them is just too great.
But in reality, every player knows that the Rachni choice won't change anything. The Rachni can't go and become a galactic threat, because these choices aren't allowed to backfire in any major way. Sure enough, things end up almost exactly the same either way, you fight a bunch of reaper controlled Rachni whether you killed it or not.
Thanks to this, sparing it as a Paragon isn't an interesting statement on Shephard's commitment to their ideals, it's just the obvious choice. Killing it as a Renegade doesn't display the lengths Shephard is willing to go to protect people, it's just being a dick for no reason.

Only if you're a renegade brute instead of intimidating

it's all for roleplaying

In Fallout it means you steal and murder to the same degree that you help strangers out.

Full renegade trashes some of his assets, you get a lower amount than Paragon who gets the most. Now granted it isn't enough to be meaningful and if you flip flop as neutral you get even less according to charts people made. But yeah, renegade trashes some of his assets. I mean it makes sense, most renegade options are "shoot X in the face, blow up Y and fuck Z in the ass." Because being ruthless for the greater good actually means be a dick because you're a dick.

>this is your brain on drumpf

>be 100% paragon
>take all renegade interrupt actions

In ME1 all the renegade shit was just making you into an asshole, it wasn't until ME2 came around that the renegade prompts let you actually be ruthless for a reason, namely getting the drop on people who you know are going to try and kill you.

Attached: Interrupts.jpg (1500x1127, 515K)

>all these sissy boys triggered by based renegade Shepard

Attached: 1540723588401.jpg (960x389, 64K)

Not sympathizing with any faction's ideals and only looking out for yourself.
Looking out only for yourself is top priority

Generally because games are too limited in player agency and devs often-enough like to reward "the good guy" or lock things if you stray too far away from the middle. "The good ending" or "special events" "side stories" and "ultimate/rare/special weapons/techniques". Play enough games and you get conditioned to not play the way you want but play the way you know devs "reward" the most. For games that have a yin/yang moratily system it's more often than not playing the middle.

Really wish ME3 had two completely different branches, one that sides with the alliance, the other with cerberus

>playing ME3
>come across a paragon/renegade choice
>Vega: Sheppard, suck my dick retard
>Option A: Calm down and watch your language please, Vega
>Option B: go fuck yourself, Vega
>pick B
>cutscene plays
>"Vega please don't be a meanie"

Replaying this trilogy is making me see how retarded the writing in ME2 and 3 was.

Yeah, I agree, that's what I said in the first place.
But it would be much better if you didn't have to consciously ignore all the meta info you actually have as a player all the time, and it'd make for a much more interesting story and main character too, regardless of which choices you made.

Because good and evil don't exist and morals aren't real.

Attached: missme.jpg (1127x1015, 72K)

You have 0 reason to side with cerberus since the end of the game makes it clear that TIM is dangerous to, you know, all the people Shepard cares about.

Because mass effect only had the illusion of choice

at the end of ME2 renegade shep is in pretty good terms with Cerberus, it's in 3 that TIM goes full retard

One of the RPGs that doesnt do good/evil is the Witcher series.
There are only consiquences

Neutrality generally means putting yourself above others without any malicious intent. Basically if you're evil you're going to hurt people for your own gain, and sometimes just because you can, but if you're neutral you're putting yourself first without actively trying to hurt others. You can do selfless shit, but at the end of the day you're out for yourself, think of pre-development Han Solo. He's neutral, he doesn't give a shit about the galaxy, the war, anything. Just himself.

This desu family. But the ego is the ultimate spook if Stirner had understood that he'd be enlightened.

Attached: 617960cfa3101bf2ed6ca9501f63b4c8.jpg (653x653, 79K)

Because there should be more options than stereotypical-comic-book-hero good and tying-a-girl-to-train-tracks evil

But Geralt isn't neutral anyway, he's a good person. He can do some dick things, sure, and slay sympathetic monsters for coin, but he's always good.

t.Doesn't understand what a spook is.

>bend over and present your ass for public use

Or

>Shoot babies

Miri, Tali or Jack?

>Not beating the game with 50% paragon and 50% renegade

Pleb.

Most Renegade options are "Use the red angry persuade instead of blue nice persuade to reach the exact same result".
In pretty much every case, things either end up exactly the same, or you conveniently get an equal but exactly as valuable replacement either way. And I only say "pretty much" on the assumption that there is some outlier, I literally can't think of any off the top of my head.
Refusing to use the persuade/intimidate options loses some assets sometimes, but there is always a convenient good renegade counterpart to every good paragon choice, and vice versa.

Jack always

Because I want to be mean to people I don't like while being nice to people I like, not choose one and stick to it for the entire game no matter what. I'm not autistic.

Garrus

Tali

>transfer my femshep waifu from 2 to 3
>she's completely different

Attached: 1536281992926.jpg (371x353, 21K)

bioware games are trash for brainlets
even the old ones

>Mfw I'm 100% the virigin paragon

Attached: giphy.gif (400x242, 1.97M)

how can you enjoy being a Council bootlicker?

>anti neutral fags

I dont want to be a complete doormat or child murdering field burner for the hundredth time.

>ok, this run I'm going to be a total asshole!
>too nice to be an asshole

IT'S NOT FAIR

Well, 100% paragon virgin except the council and the reporter Thot and when you have to do RT actions againts bad guys, but only againts bad guys

You look out for number 1 but you're not a dick about it. You wouldn't donate to a charity but if you had the chance you wouldn't steal money from it either. Basically just imagine what the average person is actually like rather than what we tell ourselves we are.

>me1
>paragon was about being an upstanding guy and doing the right thing, even if it was harder in the long run
>renegade was about getting the job done as efficiently as possibly with little regard to the cost
>me2/3
>paragon is about being the perfect super hero
>renegade is about being a dick to everyone

still mad

Attached: 1418048209928.gif (433x344, 1M)

A neutral character (also called "true neutral") is neutral on both axis and tends not to feel strongly towards any alignment, or actively seeks their balance.[9] Druids frequently follow this dedication to balance and, under Advanced Dungeons & Dragons rules, were required to be this alignment. In an example given in the 2nd Edition Player's Handbook, a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls' clan from being totally exterminated.[8]

Most animals were originally considered true neutral, because they lack the capacity for moral judgment in general, guided by instinct rather than conscious decision. The 4th edition introduced an additional alignment called "unaligned" for creatures not sapient enough to make decisions based on alignment, even that of neutrality; this alignment is also used in the 5th edition.[12]

in other words only retard autists that live in the woods, and the animals they live with are neutral. everyone else is either mostly good or mostly evil

What's the point of playing an evil character in games? So rarely is there an incentive to do so and good often has a better reward in general.
Why not make it so that evil options are easier and more rewarding whilst doing the right thing often makes it more difficult?

good/evil should just be replaced in games entirely.

Make choices that are (Rational + Efficient) vs (Emotional + Inefficient).

So that if you pick the rational options all the time you'll look like a total sociopath but you are a very effective leader earning respect and fear from companions.

While the emotional choices make you a good person in people's eyes but you are a shoddy leader and people feel honor and trust in you instead.

This way you can also make choices more morally gray and focus more on the outcome of choices rather than making up comedic one-liners nobody even gives a shit about anyway.

Attached: 1497609184270.jpg (1869x957, 271K)

>a typical druid might fight against a band of marauding gnolls, only to switch sides to save the gnolls' clan from being totally exterminated.

that sounds more like good than neutral

it's like how different states/countries will promote hunting of types of animals if there's too many, or outlaw it if they're endangered. gotta find a balance

Fable 3 kinda had that and it genuinely pissed me off. A lot of the "evil" choices were ultimately the pragmatic choice which made sense in the long run.

but that's good not neutral.

keeping things in a neutral/balanced state is something that you consider to be a good thing, so you're probably someone who leans neutral. this is why alignment is a retarded system that only really works in games

You can also RP someone who is insane and makes no rational decisions on what to do. Equal chance of being good or evil or anything in between. Mass Effect is completely incompatible with this though and nothing will ever acknowledge your character's unpredictability.

how the fuck is preserving biodiversity neutral? Killing all dangerous animals will never be good

if you're a fucking idiot then you might think killing any animal ever is a horribly evil thing to do. it's all perspective, noone can really say 'this is good, this is evil' because everyone has a different idea of it, everyone ends up coming up with their own vision of what the spectrum looks like

it's not evil per se but complete extermination is

Neutral is opportunistic. If helping someone is not advantageous to you you don't help them. If betraying or killing someone is advantageous and does not inconvenience you, you betray them. If helping someone helps you, you help them. The most important thing is that you never work against your own interests. That includes helping someone without a reward. You always work for a reward. If it's morally right to help someone but you don't benefit from it, you don't waste your time. If it's morally wrong to harm someone but you benefit from it, you do it. You do good things and bad things to get paid.

Because the interesting questions are not about good/evil.

Attached: 1526507822529.png (521x389, 411K)

Everything I believe in=good
Everything I don't believe in=evil
any questions?

>rent free

What's a RT?

Rational and emotional are not mutually exclusive, some choices can be both rational and emotional. However efficient and inefficient are mutually exclusive.

Yeah which is why I set them them apart and put a "+" between them.

A choice where the emotional choice is also the efficient one isn't very interesting to make since most people tend to go with the emotional choice anyway like saving your romantic interest over sacrifice etc.