Wondering about the morality of something I did...

Uh no, it really doesn't make any sense. It just a game mechanic that fails to account for everything. After all, it's just a game. I really don't see any justification (especially from someone who is supposedly a good person, IE: their good alignment) in breaking into someone's home and then killing them when they try to defend their property.

 

Well, I meant that the system makes sense. Me breaking the system doesn't stop it from being a good system. As the player I can do whatever the hell I want. That's the whole point of these types of RPG's, the freedom. All I meant was that the system for the NPC's is cleverly thought and well executed. The developers could have implemented a limitation for such things as breaking and entering and killing innocent people when playing a good aligned character, but that would damage the sense of freedom in the game and, in my opinion, would be unfortunate.

 

I think the problem here, if any, is that the "dark" magic shopkeeper is conceptually evil, and is given a negative alignment, hence good followers don't care. But, if you want to that about the morality of the situation, does the "evilness" of the shopkeeper mean that she is not innocent? Or, is killing of some other NPCs who have a negative alignment okay morally? there are definitely justifications for killing some characters, but without having those justifications, should a person be able to walk up to them and kill them? I guess it would really depend on what the PC knows and whether these NPCs deserve to die. But, as this is subjective, it would be very difficult to implement.

Say, for example, the PC went up to an upstanding citizen and killed him. Followers should care! but, if the PC were to find out first that the NPC was actually a murderer and "deserved" to die, the followers might agree that this could be a justified action. But, how to know if the PC "knows" that the NPC should die? Generally, this is why the PC can confront enemies first through diaog, and have some dialog options that include "virtuous" combat-inducing options, like "you're going to pay for your crimes," which cause combat to start with the NPC attacking.

THe problem with this was that conceivably, the PC might wish to attack first without talking, i.e. with backstab, or by starting at range to use a weapon effectively, but then follower NPCs, although they "knew" the same thing as the PC, would object to this because the mechanics invovled would be too complicated to check for every single situation in that follower NPC's script. Actually, it used to be considered wrong to attack a monster at range before it attacked first, even though it would attack once it saw the PC, but this was fixed, and hence the good NPC followers checking for target alignments in their AI packets (what differentiate the behaviors of NPCs, including the followers form one another), and all monsters having a negative alignment (default is -10 or something).

I think it probably makes more sense for the shopkeeper to have a good alignment and suffer from a little bit of incongruity, if the PC used sense alignment, and have the followers object. I don't think the game mechanics are really screwed up, just that this was a judgment call on the part of whoever designed the shops, and I personally would have gone the other way.

 

Well, yes, I know what you meant I think. If I came off a bit strong I apologize. At first I was under the impression you were agreeing with the idea in principal as though it made sense in real-life. I understand how it works in the game, though I do still think it's a bit silly. Not that I could code a better system, mind you.

 

I've finished it!! Finally! This game was a drug, I just couldn't get enough.
I gotta say, it was incredibly unbalanced. I blazed through the Void, I was unstoppable. I could have very well gone there myself without any follower and still not use a single potion. I mean, once I've killed the Bane of Kree and took his sword, creatures very rarely made any moves before I killed them. It was just so fast that I could make like, I don't know, a thousand hits per turn. And Kerghan, he was a joke. He took like 2-3 swings per turn and maybe one of them would hit. Oh and they could have chosen a better narrator for the outro.

But all in all it was a fantastic RPG. Fallout set the bar very high and I think when it comes to plot Arcanum takes the win. As to game-play I'm not sure but Fallout was much better balanced and had a better combat system.

 

you didn't like the narrator? and yeah, kerghan is a bit unbalanced because of the combat system, but he can still kick the ass of my firearms technologist with featerweight chain. Then again, i ususally have 6 followers plus automatons...

 

I recommend playing a gunslinging technologist next.

 

I would say either that or a half-ogre melee character with an INT of (at most) 4. The 'dumb-dialogue' is horrifically hilarious.

 

pretty much every conversation that involves someone shouting at you is amazing

 

Personally, I think that Virgil has the best dialouge with you as a stupid character. You only pronounce his name right once, and yes he notices. And one of his first lines when you meet him at the crash site: "Follow me idiot... I mean, Oh Living One". Fucking hilarious!

 

I just started with a stupid half-ogre. Oh my god, its hilarious! Even the entries in the journal are written funny. Speaking with another stupid NPC is also hilarious. I've spoken with the dwarf with the steam engine in Shrouded Hills and the whole conversation was about how shiny it is and how it makes funny noises.