Article - The Moral of the Story
Pages
| Author | Topic: Article - The Moral of the Story |
|---|---|
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 17:15
Profile
A lot of designers like to weave a bit of a moral into their scenarios. I'm not going to tell anyone not to do this, as I think the intent is good, even if the results are often quite poor. However, I will warn you to be very, very careful, as even the best designers are capable of screwing it up quite badly. When done right, this can add an extra dimension to a scenario - you aren't just playing light entertainment, there's something much deeper to it. When done badly, you'll get reviews complaining about Big Important Ideas and that the scenario has a Point To Make. No one enjoys a lecture. The most obvious example is The Valley of Dying Things. This scenario's theme can be summed up very simply - "Pollution is bad". Pollution is turned into some sort of cheesy villain. It has no motives or reason to exist in this game - I mean, it's just called 'waste'. It comes from a magical school, which apparently spent a large portion of time creating this deadly non-descript sludge. Why? No idea. What kind of bizarre magical procedure produced this stuff? No idea. What was so important that they decided it was worth the risk? No idea. We are told "pollution is bad" - but we're never told why it exists. If you're going to address an issue, you need to address it properly and fully. Throwing in a moral without exploring the issue properly is asking for trouble. Now, VoDT is hardly the worst offender in these cases. The scenario Bandits is a thinly-veiled lecture on the evils of Capitalism. The hero is called Karl Marx, and Capitalism (embodied in Mayor Pinochet) is portrayed as an incredibly greedy, evil entity. The characters are simply caricatures, espousing their various ideologies - the good of all (Communism) as opposed to intense self-interest and greed, greed, greed (Capitalism). It's about as subtle as a sledgehammer in a bowl of soup. I firmly believe that as a designer and storyteller, you should never villify any point of view. Don't paint your baddies big and black - try to see them as they see themselves. No one believes they are evil. People who work at power plants don't see themselves as environmental vandals - they are providing a much-needed service to the community. Those who admire the principles of capitalism don't see themselves as greedy, grasping overlords - they believe in rewarding hard work and innovation. Even Hitler believed he was purifying the human race. A scenario that does it right: Nephil's Gambit. Central to this game is the character Commander Groul. He's charismatic, intensely intelligent, resourceful, and brave. He's a hero. He also has no scruples whatsoever. Commander Groul believes that the end justifies the means, whatever those means may be. He engineers a war for himself to win, so he can win favour and take power. Your adversary is not a cackling, black-robed, evil-loving wizard away in a dark tower - he's the hero of your country. Nephil's Gambit doesn't hit you over the head with "The end does not justify the means". Instead, it takes Groul's point of view to it's natural conclusion, weaves a masterful story, and lets you decide for yourself. Do you follow Groul, or stand against him? Don't TELL the player something is bad - let him see and learn for himself. No one will be convinced by an editorial comment from the designer. If you want your scenario to be deep and meaningful, you need to create a story and characters with depth and meaning - not just buzzwords. In summary: 1) Making a point can be a good thing. 2) Done poorly, it can be a bad thing. 3) Making a point does not work when the scenario doesn't explore the issue properly. 4) You can't explore an issue properly with a one-sided argument. [ Saturday, May 22, 2004 15:01: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 17:50
Profile
Homepage
Just curious here, but how does Bandits not allow you to choose your side? If nothing else, you will probably be forced to side with Pinochet. If you side with Marx, it's only 'cuz you chose to. (And I'm not sure how a political story could be told in ~10 towns, half of them being "extras".) And that said, are you absolutely sure that Pinochet represents "mainstream" capitalism? The mayor's namesake- Augusto Pinochet- was a man who charged into Chile at the order of the US and assassinated the elected, Socialist president of Chile and set up a Despotism. He had no scruples, and neither did his counterpart in my scenario. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) murdered, Marx murdered (imperialist Communism). Heck, Marx is a BANDIT after all- I never go out and say that he's good. I'm afraid you're more-or-less interpolating from my political standpoint rather than taking it for what it is. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 17:58
Profile
Homepage
All in favor of telling the Creator and TM not to use each other's scenarios as example in their articles? This gets tiresome. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 18:26
Profile
Pinochet was strongly helped by CIA to get the power, he was a terrible dictator, the few days that follow he executed about 20.000 people. Or did I confuse him with someone else? I don't think so. For the advice given through the article I tend to agree, but the example of VoDT seems to me just wrong. I don't remember a single comment about "the polution is wrong" in this scenario. It had prety bad effect that can be only wrong isn't it? That's all. At best the little morale you can see, but is this morale? Is about politic power neglecting polution or mor specifically a waste "just" forgotten. [ Tuesday, May 11, 2004 18:42: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 18:42
Profile
quote:A. You don't actually force the party to side with Marx, but you do paint Pinochet big, bad and black while Marx is presented as the victim. He is never portrayed as doing anything bad - sure, he leads a bunch of bandits against the evil mayor, but he's just trying to get his family back. Also, the sequel assumes that you sided with Marx. B. Did I say anything about mainstream capitalism either? If, as you say, Bandits is about imperialist Capitalism vs imperialist Communism, it still leans heavily in favour of the latter. I'm not having a go at viewpoints here, just techniques. The "Family is important" moral of Baba Yaga was handled just as clumsily, but I used Bandits as an example because the moral is central to the entire scenario rather than tacked on at the end. Vent - The pollution is there, causing problems. It's bad. Why is it there? Magical waste produced by schoolkids (or something). It's clearly based on modern-day pollution, since it doesn't make much sense in a fantasy setting. The scenario ignores all the difficult issues associated with pollution (such as how to fix it - there's a handy mechanism that no one bothered to activate before they left) and just makes a dodgy villain out of it. [ Tuesday, May 11, 2004 18:50: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 21:09
Profile
Homepage
In my opinion, there are also a few scenarios that need a moral message and don't have one. I'm thinking specifically of Changing Faces here; you can't have a player work up that much moral outrage without doing something with it. That scenario was crying out for a better resolution than "wait centuries for the land to be rebuilt to the state of orderly, crystal-imposed bliss it once knew". Regarding Bandits, I sided with Pinochet and I lean very much to the left side of politics. Marx never does anything bad? What about having most of the population of the lumber camp murdered, not to mention burning down Pinochet's home? Perhaps TM didn't emphasise these events as much as he ought to have, and perhaps he made Pinochet try less hard to present a convincing case than he should have, but Marx is hardly portrayed as a saint. Taken literally, siding with Marx in Bandits is tantamount to saying that adultery is a justification for murder. Regarding VoDT, I have ideas about why the waste disposal mechanisms weren't used when the school was sealed, but they involve more thought than the plot really deserves. :P One other point I'd make is that if you let a player make a moral choice, make the choice mean something: having both paths lead to the same result in The Nature of Evil was a convenient way for Measle to get his message across, but it's just plain inconsiderate to the player. [ Tuesday, May 11, 2004 21:16: Message edited by: J. W. Howard, Esq. ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4118
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 21:40
Profile
Homepage
I personally liked the plot of The Valley of Dying Things. I've only played the blades of exile version so I can't say if things changed. I didn't memorized the plot so sorry if this is off. The school was too independent for the empire. It was quickly shut down with at least some of the people running it killed by someone else in the school who was more loyal to the empire. The people running it saw this coming and made a ghost to tell you how to get rid of the waste that was still there because of the machines that were used to get rid of it being shut down. The waste was just whatever was left from magical spells and such. I imagined the chemical waste from a school laboratory. It was gotten rid of in a furnace. It was probably done in a more controlled way then what is done in the end of the story. I mostly liked it because it had the same feel as Geneforge or Resident Evil. The exploring a place left suddenly is in all these games. They are mostly setting and not characters. A few of these articles seem to basically say don't write badly. Which is hard to do as amateurs who may be mediocre writers. I personally imagine having quite a hard time writing good dialog. Which is one of the things I love in a game or writing in general. I personally don't mind good vs evil plots either. As long the characters and settings are interesting. Posts: 27 | Registered: Thursday, March 18 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Tuesday, May 11 2004 21:57
Profile
Homepage
My theory was actually that the experiments were continuing on their own while the School was officially sealed. One of the wisps mentions that the experiments conducted at the School had to do with artificial life, after all. The experiments were presumably conducted in secrecy in the sealed School because they were highly dangerous; the murders were probably an attempt to silence opposition to them. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 4185
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 02:43
Profile
Homepage
quote:Maybe I'm just entirely stupid :confused: , but if you refer to the "real" Marx and Pinochet, I actually don't think Marx ever murdered (or sent someone to murder) anyone. Lexicons says he "participated in the revolution", but then mostly as a writer and not as some kind of killer. Pinochet, however, clearly ordered lots of people to be killed. So I think it's kind of fair to portray Pinochet as more evil, whatever you may say about Marx politics. But let's not make Spiderweb Message Boards into a political or historical forum - to the point. Creator, I really do think you got a point, but there are different types of scenarios. BoA takes place in a fantasy world - and after all, almost every old fairy tale has this simple "he-is-a-evil-wizard-and-he-wants-to-be-evil-just-because-he's-so-evil" concept, and thought it may make people feel a bit stupid playing it, you can make a good story out of that too. Remember that in Lord of the Rings (and now I'm talking about the the books, not the scenarios) Sauron didn't really had a good reason to not just join up with the good people, tell them to please give him his ring, and living happily with the Vala for eternal time. He's just evil. And Lord of the Rings seems good to me anyway... Is a scenario very different? I don't say all scenarios have to be this simple, I just say they don't all have to be that advanced. We all need some fairytales. :) -------------------- Rufo, Vahnatai Ka, Te Pinoat Posts: 30 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 03:24
Profile
Homepage
quote:But to an extent, Marx is a victim. (His child was, for reference, robbed from him.) The question is whether or not he is moral. The only reason that he is portrayed as being good is because he leads you to his home, complete with charming little memoires of his days past. He acts like he is the victim, he acts like is good. Still, he did commit, um, murder. Of his wife. And saying that the winners are the good guys is a pretty piss-poor assumption on your part. Pinochet beat the Chileans, was he moral in doing so? History doesn't tell us who's right or who's wrong, only who's left. quote:See the previous (and Thuryl's) point. Marx tries to murder Pinochet, Marx tries to murder the party, Marx successfully massacres plenty of innocent folks. He is not the "Good Guy" here. Not necisarily, anyway. quote:Bandits isn't exclusively about Marxism. Let's remember that Marx was also homeys with Lenin- then it would be safer to say that this scenario deals with Marxist-Leninism, which is definitely a more pro-murder philosophy. Portraying both ends as being Bad- ie. both Pinochet and Marx- was the point I had more-or-less intended. Pinochet (imperialist Capitalism) is a dirty robber, but is revolution (Marxist-Leninism) really worth it? If you sided with Marx, your answer is yes, Creator. :P -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1768
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 03:48
Profile
What is it with Lenin? Was I fed a bunch of crap in that book from 5th grade? :( Eh, in any case, VoDT could also be against oppression and stuff from the Empire. Because the Empire didn't want anyone else controlling magic, they shut the school down hastily, which is why they had the killings. -------------------- "Oh, North Wind, why frighten others? In Nature's family all are brothers. Puff and blow and wheeze and hiss; You can't frighten Shingebiss. Bring your frost and ice and snow; I'm still free to come and go. You can never frighten me, One who never fears is FREE!" -Shingebiss, the mighty duck Posts: 830 | Registered: Tuesday, August 20 2002 07:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 04:06
Profile
Whoops. I guess my memory of that scenario is a bit hazy. I certainly don't remember anything about Marx murdering his wife. In reference to Sauron, there are reasons behind his actions, if you really want to study the Silmarillion. [ Wednesday, May 12, 2004 04:09: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 04:10
Profile
Homepage
I don't think it's explicitly mentioned, but I don't think we ever see her again after the fire either. Come to think of it, that's probably why Pinochet's so ticked off at that point. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 04:38
Profile
Checking the Bandits .exs file, it seems that Marx wasn't behind the lumber camp massacre. That was another bunch, and you walk in during negotiations about an alliance. Yeah, Marx tries to kill the party... that's been hired to kill him. Not that unreasonable. I think the reason why Marx comes off as so much more sympathetic than Pinochet is that he has motives. Not that they're necessarily good ones, but just the fact that they're there makes him better by comparison. In reference to Marx being presumed alive in Bandits 2, considering that the party is placed in a situation where they can decide the outcome, I assume that it would be natural to expect them to make the 'right' choice. Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way. [ Wednesday, May 12, 2004 04:38: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 07:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:As I recall, not having the book in front of me to check it, this came down to: he follows/worships Morgoth, who is some sort of fallen angel thing, so Morgoth is evil, so Sauron is evil. Besides, I think the point was that Sauron's motives are never explained in LotR itself, and it doesn't really matter. That doesn't make this point quote:any less valid. I think that this sentence quote:should be rewritten. There are many layers to this. The narrator probably shouldn't directly condemn an entire ideology ("Peering through the darkness, you see a three-headed monster. By the way, capitalism is bad."), but ultimately, scenarios, just like any stories, can have a point. If a designer wants to point out the evils of capitalism (or communism or fascism or Christianity or Judaism or atheism or modernism or...), then the designer can do that. Generally, as a writing technique, you don't do that by saying it directly. You show results. You portray a laissez faire capitalist system that exploits its workers to the point of serious abuse, perhaps drawing from the first decade of the twentieth century for examples. You show a communist system that collectivizes agriculture and deals with resistance by mass slaughter, as Stalin did in the 1930's. People are not likely to believe you if you say that capitalism is bad, but if you show them examples of capitalism being bad, they may think your point has some validity. Scenarios very much can villify certain points of view. It's just that one-dimensional villains are terrible representatives of a point of view, because they don't really have anything to do with that point of view; they are one-dimensional. I'm guessing that this sentence just came out wrong, based on the rest of the article, but as it reads right now, I disagree with it. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 07:48
Profile
quote:Ooops! quote:I appreciate the attempt to lowdown the scenario quality by the use of words "schoolkids (or something)". Using "something" only would have been enough. :D quote:That makes no sense, why Fantasy should be limited? There are echoes with modern world pollution. You didn't saw them but you hadn't been a good player as there are bad readers. Or perhaps you need play the boA version? quote:That's not the morale problem behind nowadays pollution. It's not a fix problem or any thechnics or risks evaluation. It's a problem of "Ha well for now it's ok, let future generation solve the problem when it will be really needed.". That's the core of the pollution problem and VoDT clearly goes in front of that point and I'm surprised you didn't saw that. Yes, the approach isn't subtile, a massive artillery is used, we are fully in a black&white point of view. I won't condemn the author about this choice because we blind ourself too much and we need more strong messages instead of possible confuse message that let people think, ha well it's ok future generation will solve the problem. About the grey point of view, you didn't mentioned a problem that think important. Except if you are a master writer you should put a lot of care when you try to avoid the black&white problem. You could easily end in something that seems to justify anything like child murder, serial killer, and so on. So I agree it's a point of improvement but a lot of care is required and it's not always a necessity as soon as the morale message isn't direct. A quote, in a morale article, in a BoA forum, do not mention A Small Rebellion is very surprising. Too complicate? [ Wednesday, May 12, 2004 08:01: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 09:12
Profile
Homepage
Vent, the pollution in VoDT is pretty shallow. Pollution in the modern day is a complicated issue (being discussed starting around here in a thread in the General forum), and it doesn't boil down to, "For now it's okay, and we'll let future generations solve the problem when it's necessary." It is a matter of choices between alternatives that each have their disadvantages. Besides, even if that were the case, VoDT contains absolutely no explanation for the reasons that the mages didn't activate the anti-pollution mechanisms when they left. You're just guessing at their rationale, but VoDT doesn't even supply that. quote:Despite some legitimacy in the complaint, the Creator has made it clear with his actions that he is not going to draw only from BoA examples, so you should probably quit objecting. ASR's ambiguous morality is one of the main reasons that people like it. It is an example of the success of the Creator's description above. Nephil's Gambit is probably more successful and more liked. Nephil's Gambit is therefore probably the better example. Articles need not mentioned *every* scenario that relates. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 12:51
Profile
quote:There are plenty good reasons to explain a goverment refused to sign a wordwide treaty despite it is the first pollution maker and all other industrialized country had sign. I'm confident we could find many good reasons not doing something with an effect not in near future. I agree it's complicate but if there's a blocking in governments and everyday everybody behavior it's not because of good reasons to not doing something but because a mentality need to change and I think it's far to be done. quote:Am I dreaming or why there's a BoE forum? If there are only BoE example I don't see why put this article here. Well when none of the few BoA scenario could apply, why not, but when it's possible... So you should better quit objecting my objecting. Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
BoE Posse
Member # 112
|
written Wednesday, May 12 2004 16:00
Profile
Sure, you could find reasons. I'm sure Jeff Vogel could have too. But he didn't bother. I don't think A Small Rebellion is a good example. It has a moral dilemma, but it doesn't have a moral. This doesn't make it a bad scenario, of course. It's hard for me to draw from BoA scenarios considering I'm on PC. I would if I could, but I can't so I won't. Besides, there are way more good scenarios for BoE and everyone should play them. Kel - I think the word 'villify' means different things to you and me. Commander Groul is the antagonist of Nephil's Gambit, so it would be fair to say he's the 'bad guy', but I don't believe Tormod Strangeland villified him. He actually got into the mind of his 'villain' and understood him. He treated Groul as a character, not a baddie. So basically, I think we agree on concept, but differ on terminology. [ Wednesday, May 12, 2004 16:06: Message edited by: The Creator ] -------------------- Rate my scenarios! Areni Revenge To Live in Fear Deadly Goblins Ugantan Nightmare Isle of Boredom Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sunday, October 7 2001 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, May 13 2004 00:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yeah, but in this case all that the researchers at the school had to do was push a freaking button and the waste would be all gone. My problem with VoDT is that it tries to make an external point about society that simply doesn't make sense within the internal logic of the scenario. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Saturday, May 15 2004 15:24
Profile
Ok, I agree pollution morale isn't the center of this scenario. I disagree it must be the centrale subject for all scenario related to pollution. Also it changes from the too often seen plague. I disagree it has no link with any nowadays pollution problems. About a Small Rebellion, it follows many advices of the article plus morale is more in its center than most other games I ever played. That doesn't means it gives you the solution but that's what is very difficult with morale, give your solution to the player. And that's a little what you advice to avoid. Finally it would have been the perfect example for your "avoid black&white" advice. Even more, what makes this scenario popular is certainly a lot that aspect. At least myself I get hypnotized by this. [ Saturday, May 15, 2004 15:28: Message edited by: Vent ] Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, May 15 2004 16:32
Profile
Homepage
I don't think anyone's said there isn't a link between VoDT and real pollution; the link is obvious. What we've been saying is that the link is an illogical one; Jeff forced a political ideology into a place where it doesn't really fit. -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 4186
|
written Monday, May 17 2004 22:18
Profile
I disagree and I'm tired to try to explain, :P there's a pollution morale in this scenario that's all I mean. And I also disagree that it's a good example of a wrong use of morale. That's also a great scenario. :D Posts: 175 | Registered: Friday, April 2 2004 08:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, May 18 2004 03:29
Profile
Homepage
quote:And hey, Marxist-Leninism had motives too! Damned good ones, and far better than "we-want-power" motives of both Imperial Capitalism and the Czars who were rebelled against. Does that make a Bolshevik Republic a morally feasible response? Eh, it's the party's choice. quote:Your link is rather weak. The party is not "presumed" to make the correct choice, they're only presumed to make the choice that I have them make in the next scenario. (In this respect, I was more-or-less chosing the outcome that would give the two a reunion fight- Katothen most definitely would not go out of his way to revive Pinochet, and Deacon would also have no reason to re-animate Marx.) Part of the reasoning is that this scenario is taken from the Sanctuary perspective. Katothen is, unless you haven't picked this up, fatally emotional. Pinochet by his nature has no real motives, and even though Marx uses violence to achieve his means, he at least has a "good heart" (quotes representing ambiguity). Katothen also uses violence to achieve his means (although admittedly, his case is different in many other ways). Unless B2 is to occur from the perspective of Deacon (which would be quite interesting indeed!), it would make sense to have the party choose not necisarily the right choice but the pro-Sanctuary choice. Thuryl - I agree very much with most of your comments, especially Changing Faces. The first time I played it I got stuck shortly before the end. It was better that way.[/QB][/QUOTE] -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
BANNED
Member # 4
|
written Tuesday, May 18 2004 03:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:And hey, Marxist-Leninism had motives too! Damned good ones, and far better than "we-want-power" motives of both Imperial Capitalism and the Czars who were rebelled against. Does that make a Bolshevik Republic a morally feasible response? Eh, it's the party's choice. quote:Your link is rather weak. The party is not "presumed" to make the correct choice, they're only presumed to make the choice that I have them make in the next scenario. (In this respect, I was more-or-less chosing the outcome that would give the two a reunion fight- Katothen most definitely would not go out of his way to revive Pinochet, and Deacon would also have no reason to re-animate Marx.) Part of the reasoning is that this scenario is taken from the Sanctuary perspective. Katothen is, unless you haven't picked this up, fatally emotional. Pinochet by his nature has no real motives, and even though Marx uses violence to achieve his means, he at least has a "good heart" (quotes representing ambiguity). Katothen also uses violence to achieve his means (although admittedly, his case is different in many other ways). Unless B2 is to occur from the perspective of Deacon (which would be quite interesting indeed!), it would make sense to have the party choose not necisarily the right choice but the pro-Sanctuary choice. quote:The first time I played it, I got stuck towards the beginning. It was better that way. -------------------- * Posts: 6936 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |