AoD forces you to play certain roles?

[Vault Dweller]

Jesus. Duh!

 

[ushdugery]

Moral's are a subjective situational characteristic and even the broad moral outlook of specific religious groups has evolved and changed throughout history. Saying someone has "Strong Morals" is more a description of their unambigous nature rather than their righteous nature. (although it is often synonymous with self righteousness)

 

[Brother None]

What is ''moral authority''?

"Absolute moral authority" is a way of saying you believe there's a divine figure whose morality is absolute.

"Moral authority" generally means "I like this guy's morals". I don't think Buddhists would be particularly interested in Jesus as a moral authority, but whatevz.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Meh, i wanted to see Mareu's version. You made it easy for him. Spoilsport. :evil:

 

[Brother None]

Sorry, it looked like he needed some help.

With, y'know...words.

 

[GeneralSamov]

I vote VD gets the powers back for 1 day.

Also: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeLAELIxKY

 

[Vault Dweller]

"Moral authority" generally means "I like this guy's morals". I don't think Buddhists would be particularly interested in Jesus as a moral authority, but whatevz.

You obviously know nothing. Most Buddhists maybe aren't interested in Jesus, but a lot of them are.

 

[cardtrick]

No, you know nothing. As to why Buddhists aren't interested in Jesus, I will simply say that Buddha's life proves it. I don't know why you can't comprehend basic facts.

 

[Vault Dweller]

 

[elander_]

No. You'll have plenty of opportunities to say "fuck you" and double cross people left and right, but I what's the point to start the game as a "merchant" and refuse the first quest and be thrown out immediately? Really? Like I said, if you don't like the setup of the merchants guild, start a new game. In my opinion, the vignettes do a good job explaining you what each guild is about.

I think what Lumpy was trying to say is that it would be interesting to see their reaction. A big part of the fun in playing rpgs is to anticipate someones reaction and be suprised with it. Instead of denying that choice you could have the merchant guild master call a few tugs and end up your life right there for refusing. Of course he could call the tugs first then make it clear to you that if you refuse again you will get it.

What if you accept the quest and then ignore it and go about your life? Is the merchant guild going to wait forever for your character to complete it or will he punish you if you take too long?

 

[Lumpy]

I think what Lumpy was trying to say is that it would be interesting to see their reaction. A big part of the fun in playing rpgs is to anticipate someones reaction and be suprised with it. Instead of denying that choice you could have the merchant guild master call a few tugs and end up your life right there for refusing. Of course he could call the tugs first then make it clear to you that if you refuse again you will get it.

I don't think the Merchant Guild is going to kill an obstinate member for refusing a quest, although they might kick you out.

What if you accept the quest and then ignore it and go about your life? Is the merchant guild going to wait forever for your character to complete it or will he punish you if you take too long?

It's the opening vignette - you have to do it before anything else. AFAIK, you'll be instantly teleported to your destination anyway (OMG fast travel), so you won't have much of a choice.
In any case, it's a minor issue and not really worth discussing for 6 pages.

 

[elander_]

I don't think the Merchant Guild is going to kill an obstinate member for refusing a quest, although they might kick you out.

I think they could depending on how much authoritarian the merchant guild is with is pawns. A new pawn defying authority can't be handled just by kicking him out in this case. Others might think they could do the same and get an easy way out.

 

[Zhirzzh]

I don't think the Merchant Guild is going to kill an obstinate member for refusing a quest, although they might kick you out.

I think they could depending on how much authoritarian the merchant guild is with is pawns. A new pawn defying authority can't be handled just by kicking him out in this case. Others might think they could do the same and get an easy way out.

I don't think you're that new. Most of the vignettes imply you are moderately experienced with your line of work, and this one implies you were involved in the incident six months ago.

 

[VonVentrue]

A standard argument of religious folks. "If you can't understand that Jesus loves you, then I can't argue with your anymore!!!"

Please refrain from offending religious people, VD. Mareus obviously isn't one.

(insert that idiotic picture here)

Disconnected, back up these claims or get fucking lost.

 

[Ratty]

Jesus is a moral authority and if you fail to comprehend that, then I really have nothing more to say on the matter.

That's cute. You do realize there is no reliable evidence of historical existence of Jesus? Moreover, even if a dude named Jesus Christ once lived somewhere in Judea, there exist no accounts of his life that might be considered even remotely reliable. You might as well use examples from Star Wars to prove your point. "Most Imperials didn't feel guilt when Grand Moff Tarkin destroyed Alderaan, but a lot of them did!"

As for the topic: only someone as stupid as Andhaira would make an issue out of something as insignificant as this. As I understand it, opening vignettes are supposed to not only provide a background and starting place for the protagonist, but also serve as tutorials of sorts, intended to familiarize the players with AoD world and gameplay. I don't see how letting the player run wild with exotic, life-changing choices would be conducive to that purpose. And in addition to that, I question whether the option to refuse the first merchant mission on account of a guilt trip would even be realistic. If your character starts the game as a full-fledged member of the Commercium, then it's reasonable to assume he or she is more than accustomed to the way the guild conducts its business. So why suddenly fuss about something that is obviously part of the guild's normal modus operandi?

 

[Jedi_Learner]

Disconnected, back up these claims or get fucking lost.

Checkmate!

 

[jiduthie]

I'd be willing to kill the maps merchants for his maps if they had bloom. Even Jesus would kill for bloomed maps. And Jesus's class was even moar carebear than a merchant. Jesus was a carpenter. I think though that for good roleplaying there should be an option to be the Jesus. It makes since in context sense there are Romans in VD.

 

[VonVentrue]

Disconnected, back up these claims or get fucking lost.

Checkmate!

The very first claim: the Earth is 6000 years old. The Bible does not even indicate such a thing. I can't be bothered to watch this bullshit, really...

 

[Mareus]

Even if Jesus was made perfect through the bible (although some of you assholes here will probably say that even the "biblical Jesus" was far from perfect, from what shit I have read here), and even if everything about him is a lie it doesn't mean you cannot follow his teachings. Even a fantasy character who has strong moral values can to someone be a moral authority (and I will not get into explaining what moral authority means, because if you don't know what it means you are really too stupid to talk with me). I really do not understand why some of you people here are acting dumber then you really are, and are just trying to kiss VD's ass.

From what I have seen of VD so far, I admire his persistence and what he started with AoD. I like his reviews too and I hope the game will be great. But I have also noticed that he can be a big ass and I am not one of you kissasses who go sucking up into his asshole just to get a few more points on the Codex even when he is acting like a retard.

Also, I know my english could be better, and sometimes I do have a problem with the lack of right words, but anyone who doesn't pretend to be more stupid than he really is can understand what I was saying.

PS. Also that checkmate thing was full of nontruth about the bible that the sarcasm itself made me sick. Also, even the church today accepts science and Christians are not so stupid to believe in everything that is in the Bible. I think only Amish are so orthodox to believe in the Bible litteraly.

 

[The Rambling Sage]

...

Chill out, guy. You are blowing this way out of proportion, and you are mixing up "You" with "Your character" in there - For an example: "In AoD doing what you are told to do directly reflects in someone's death (...) all I am saying is that there should be options whenever there are such big decisions to make." Who says it is a 'big decision' in the gameworld? And, if it is not such a big decision in the gameworld why should your character be diferent? That-one-drow syndrome? We have to trust VD there, since HE is the only one who knows every single detail of the setting. You do not, yet you are assuming OUR moral values extend to that world, in general, and that organization, in particular. Not even all cultures on Earth placed that big emphasis on human life - And, in particular, not in periods of cultural (and, thus, moral) decadence.

And: "This is another dissapointment when you said it will be hard to play a good guy if not impossible."

Hint: Do not choose the 'Merchant' background if you want to be a good guy in a world where, without a central power regulating their activities, 'merchants' can do as they please - And even less so in a world where such a void in power makes obvious a 'guild' is alive just because they have both the power to crush enemies (one way or another) and the will to use it when needed... When some upstart independent comes and questions the very same power they require to thrive and survive (and become more powerful, rich, and fat) in the setting, for a possibly erroneous example.

I would even say "Begin by choosing None as to get to KNOW the power groups before making a choice in allies and ideals, if you want to be good guy" were i not sure you are going to just keep whining, or whatever it is called what you are doing now, because you can't have it your way.

 

[Azrael the cat]

All Mareus has done is ask a legitimate question, make a very legitimate criticism and a few fairly easy to implement suggestions about how the game could be improved.

Not really.

He criticised the game for not offering a choice in a situation where a choice would be good for roleplaying.

Would you file "I should be able to stay in the vault and figure out how to fix the water chip instead of being forced to go and look for one" under constructive criticism?

No. But I would certainly file "I shouldn't be forced into having a particular father-son relationship in FO3 that pre-defines aspects of my character" as constructive criticism. Do you agree?

Let's look at the difference between these situations, the 'I should be able to stay in the vault' as situation type A, and the 'I should not have to help arrange an assassination in AoD' and 'I shouldn't be forced into having a particular father-son relationship in FO3' as situation type B.

Situation A first: the start of FO1 defines absolutely nothing of importance about the kind of person your character is. It gives you a situation to deal with and you can then go about dealing with it in a way that meets your character's moral or social norms. The only option it shuts off is the 'I'm so stupidly short-sighted that I can't see why I have any stake in this' character, but that's about all. It certainly doesn't force you to be a character that would participate in an assassination as the only way of dealing with that situation.

Now when situation A is sweet and dandy by you, why on earth is anyone complaining about (the likelihood of) having a predefined father relationship in FO3? Same reason Mareus was concerned about not having any options other than to cooperate with the assassination. Because the predefined father relation in FO3, AND the 'you must assist in arranging the assassination' don't just give us a situation, they force important aspects of our characters', well 'character' - the character's personality, moral and social outlook etc. THAT is a problem, and one that could be fixed a lot easier than it would be to give a 'fuck the water chip' option in FO1 - the same situation could be presented, except now you could have the option of turning the assassin and client in to the police, and the police saying 'hey, we found this map on the guy when we searched him, do you know anything about that?' Or having you steal the map from the guy and bailing town (allowing to define your character as one that doesn't mind some skull-duggery, but doesn't want to help arrange a murder)? Or hell, maybe even throw in a dialogue option where you 'hardball' the merchant giving the quest and outright refuse, with him saying that this won't put you in good stead with your superiors, but there might be few favours that they could use you for...(involving sending you on some dangerous mission in which the merchant clearly believes that you will be killed). Or come up with an opening viginette that doesn't presuppose a massive aspect of our characters' personality. Not exactly the same as writing and coding a 'fuck the water chip, I'm staying home' alternate path to FO1.

FO1 gives you a situation, nothing more. The assassination mission gives you a situation - which is fine - but then not only forces a particular solution to it (which is less fine, but acceptible given that it is an opening viginette), but also rips a massive decision about your character's personality and moral viewpoints out of the player's hands. As I said, I - and I suspect Mareus - would have no complaint about you doing it like in FO1 - i.e. giving us a situation and even an initial forced path, but one which makes no real assumptions about our character. I do think it is a valid criticism to point out that your assassination beginning is NOT like that - it is like the feared predefined father-son relationship in FO3, where major roleplaying decisions are taken away from the player for no good reason.

So, does Bethesda rock gaming design? Or was Mareus making a valid and constructive criticism?


[post-script: yes I do recognise that it IS just one opening viginette, and that in itself is unlikely to be a game-breaking issue. Just like the pre-defined father-son relationship in FO3 is unlikely - by itself- to be a game-breaking issue. But that doesn't make it any less of a possibility for improvement - most flaws in games are miniscule when taken individually, but less so if replicated many times over the game]

 

[Gnidrologist]

How about just choosing char with a different background then? Does Bethesda offer that?

What if instead of those ''vignettes'' there would be plain simple beginning, where you escape from prison (lol) and come to the catacomb, where you are approached by this merchant guild member aswell as some other party representatives and are forced to choose between them. They tell you what would be your first mission, so you could choose not to join teh cosa nostra merchants cuz they r evil killars.

Would you still criticise the game for lack of pacifist choice?

 

[Jasede]

I'm very disappointed I can't play a gay furry in AoD, this game sucks.

 

[Jaime Lannister]

Morality is selfish. Helping people makes you liked which boosts your ego. End of debate.

 

[Jasede]

I can't believe you believe that.