the story should not be focussed on heroes...

[snake_vargas]

...as real life isn't. Just take some men who try to survive. If they stay clean, ok, if they do not, who cares.... it's a wasteland out there. :

[Mandemon]

Uuuh, what?

You are Desert Rangers. Your job is to set up a new camp in the area. Those are our heroes. We are going to follow them. Not some rat tag group of people who barely survive.

[Balls Out 3]

From what I've heard, the game is going to be morally ambiguous, so there's not really going to be this good guy, bad guy stuff. Some of the NPCs you may be able to recruit sound like they have a strong antihero vibe about them. I recall Fargo giving an example of a character who would be valuable to have in the group, but he steals from you. Stuff like that.

[AgentTate]

Right. The original Rangers could be morally ambiguous; shooting children and babies, blowing up the Hobo Dog stand (wasteland scum!), killing all the robot cops, etc...

[Fuzi0n]

From what I've heard, the game is going to be morally ambiguous, so there's not really going to be this good guy, bad guy stuff. Some of the NPCs you may be able to recruit sound like they have a strong antihero vibe about them. I recall Fargo giving an example of a character who would be valuable to have in the group, but he steals from you. Stuff like that.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the thread's topic. I think he is talking about letting your rangers be either good or evil depending on the choices that you make in the game.

[Balls Out 3]

From what I've heard, the game is going to be morally ambiguous, so there's not really going to be this good guy, bad guy stuff. Some of the NPCs you may be able to recruit sound like they have a strong antihero vibe about them. I recall Fargo giving an example of a character who would be valuable to have in the group, but he steals from you. Stuff like that.

Yes, but this has nothing to do with the thread's topic. I think he is talking about letting your rangers be either good or evil depending on the choices that you make in the game.

Yes, and that's what I'm getting at. I was making the point that your rangers won't necessarily be good or evil, considering the morally grey setting of Wasteland. I also gave an example of a recruitable NPC who isn't good nor evil. AgentTate brought up the example of the hobo dog stand from WL1. Sure, you could interpret killing a man who was selling hotdogs made out of hobos as being good, but in the end, you're still blowing someone up with a howitzer. That's not really something a hero would do.

[Mandemon]

Yes, and that's what I'm getting at. I was making the point that your rangers won't necessarily be good or evil, considering the morally grey setting of Wasteland. I also gave an example of a recruitable NPC who isn't good nor evil. AgentTate brought up the example of the hobo dog stand from WL1. Sure, you could interpret killing a man who was selling hotdogs made out of hobos as being good, but in the end, you're still blowing someone up with a howitzer. That's not really something a hero would do.

You realize that most of the time you are blowing up people with a howitzer and don't consider yourself "evil" Those thugsdon't necessarily see themselves evil.

[Balls Out 3]

Also take note that snake_vargas says:

men who try to survive.

When it comes to survival, all bets are off. Sure, you could try and stick to some principles, but in the end, the wasteland doesn't give a shit. It's still going to try and kill you regardless. In a survival situation, it's about how far you're willing to go to survive, "good" and "evil" be damned...and you just may find yourself doing things you never thought you would. I'm reminded of real life people who have been stranded at sea. Once you run out of provisions, do you resort to cannibalism to survive? Do you eat a dead crew member so you may live? Some people have. Whether or not what they did deserves punishment is a hotly debated topic. Was it "good", or "evil"? In the end, they did what they had to in order to survive. Afterall...

.... it's a wasteland out there.

[Woolfe]

The story should be focused on the party, otherwise why are you playing the game.

However, the party may not necessarily be "heroes" ...

Also take note that snake_vargas says:

men who try to survive.

When it comes to survival, all bets are off. Sure, you could try and stick to some principles, but in the end, the wasteland doesn't give a shit. It's still going to try and kill you regardless. In a survival situation, it's about how far you're willing to go to survive, "good" and "evil" be damned...and you just may find yourself doing things you never thought you would. I'm reminded of real life people who have been stranded at sea. Once you run out of provisions, do you resort to cannibalism to survive? Do you eat a dead crew member so you may live? Some people have. Whether or not what they did deserves punishment is a hotly debated topic. Was it "good", or "evil"? In the end, they did what they had to in order to survive. Afterall...

.... it's a wasteland out there.

Balls. One of the best ways to ensure safety is to build a society that can defend you. If you can create a society that produces enough food, and has capability to defend against all comers, then you are in a much better place than the guy who doesn't build a society and lives out by himself in the hills.

[Balls Out 3]

Balls. One of the best ways to ensure safety is to build a society that can defend you. If you can create a society that produces enough food, and has capability to defend against all comers, then you are in a much better place than the guy who doesn't build a society and lives out by himself in the hills.

Sure, and I understand that there are societies in Wasteland that are at least semi-protected and self sustaining. Of course, it becomes much more of a survival situation once the rangers leave the safety of their base...

[Woolfe]

Balls. One of the best ways to ensure safety is to build a society that can defend you. If you can create a society that produces enough food, and has capability to defend against all comers, then you are in a much better place than the guy who doesn't build a society and lives out by himself in the hills.

Sure, and I understand that there are societies in Wasteland that are at least semi-protected and self sustaining. Of course, it becomes much more of a survival situation once the rangers leave the safety of their base...

My point was that if you go around just surviving, not caring about anyone in between the "societies" then the societies will grow different and certainly have a different attitude towards you.

But that is a good thing in my books. If you play it as a lawless bastard when you are in between towns, you should start to build a rep like that, whereas if you play the true paragon helping whoever even when it is not necessarily the best thing to do, then that should be reflected as well.

[Balls Out 3]

Balls. One of the best ways to ensure safety is to build a society that can defend you. If you can create a society that produces enough food, and has capability to defend against all comers, then you are in a much better place than the guy who doesn't build a society and lives out by himself in the hills.

My point was that if you go around just surviving, not caring about anyone in between the "societies" then the societies will grow different and certainly have a different attitude towards you.

Well, in my example I wasn't necessarily talking about someone trying to eke out an existence alone. I was more trying to expound on the moral ambiguities brought on by the realities of survival. When a guy is starving to death, he can't really afford to be good. In those situations, good men tend to turn bad. But can you really blame them if they were to steal from someone to feed themselves or someone they care about? It's kind of like the Robin Hood character, a classic anti-hero. One one hand, he is helping the poor. On the other, he is raiding caravans and murdering other men.

And it's not like every man can start a civilization, or even join one. If a town has plenty of resources, they might let someone in. If they don't, it would be foolish to add another mouth to feed, especially if their population is already in decline.

But that is a good thing in my books. If you play it as a lawless bastard when you are in between towns, you should start to build a rep like that, whereas if you play the true paragon helping whoever even when it is not necessarily the best thing to do, then that should be reflected as well.

As far as your example goes, yes, that's how it's often treated in video games. I personally strive to create anti-hero characters. I think they're much more interesting than the usual good and evil dichotomy. People don't tend to suspect the guy who saved the village of thievery when a few items go missing.

[Woolfe]

Well, in my example I wasn't necessarily talking about someone trying to eke out an existence alone. I was more trying to expound on the moral ambiguities brought on by the realities of survival. When a guy is starving to death, he can't really afford to be good. In those situations, good men tend to turn bad. But can you really blame them if they were to steal from someone to feed themselves or someone they care about? It's kind of like the Robin Hood character, a classic anti-hero. One one hand, he is helping the poor. On the other, he is raiding caravans and murdering other men.

And bad men turn good. Classic Gemmell conundrum. The good man fails and causes ill, the bad man sacrifices himself to save the many.... (I miss Gemmell)
But again whilst this may be happening, the WL world was beyond that and had "stabilised" somewhat. Subsistence survival is no longer the primary concern.

And it's not like every man can start a civilization, or even join one. If a town has plenty of resources, they might let someone in. If they don't, it would be foolish to add another mouth to feed, especially if their population is already in decline.

Aaaah but you aren't "every man" you are a team of Desert Rangers sent from a stable region to establish a new base in a new region. And that mouth you turn away may have been someone who was a natural at farming, or medicine, or worse you turn him away and he turns to those who would use him against you. Every action has consequences...

But that is a good thing in my books. If you play it as a lawless bastard when you are in between towns, you should start to build a rep like that, whereas if you play the true paragon helping whoever even when it is not necessarily the best thing to do, then that should be reflected as well.

As far as your example goes, yes, that's how it's often treated in video games. I personally strive to create anti-hero characters. I think they're much more interesting than the usual good and evil dichotomy. People don't tend to suspect the guy who saved the village of thievery when a few items go missing.

Ah but you see, I disagree. If I am playing as a paragon of virtue, I shouldn't be stealing from the village. Most games don't actually follow those consequences properly. If you steal, you should be penalised if caught. If you steal and get away with it. Then perhaps some suspicion may fall upon you. I'd like to see situations when you are in town and a bunch of stuff gets nicked, but you are actually innocent, and yet everyone thinks it was you.

Consequences are the goal. Good ones, big and little that affect the way the game plays.

[Mandemon]

I am reminded of Dragon Age: Origins.

If you stole in Ostagar, you might get short scene where one of the captains tries to prove to Duncan that his new Grey Warden recruit is stealing from troops. Of course he hand waves it says it isn't true. Still, if you walk around and talk to them some of them express distrust to you, despite Grey Wardens being widely hold in good light.

In Denerim, you might get ambushed by guards if you get caught from stealing too many times and they express their surprise that a Grey Warden is stealing form the people.

You can be complete saint, but even if you steal people are still going to hold you accountable.

Then again, these require you get caught at least 3 times

[suz]

Then again, these require you get caught at least 3 times

May be the protagonist is compulsive kleptomaniac? Ah, the cruel world just doesn't understand pack rats!

[Mandemon]

Then again, these require you get caught at least 3 times

May be the protagonist is compulsive kleptomaniac? Ah, the cruel world just doesn't understand pack rats!

I swear it was an accident! I didn't mean to try and steal your sword! My hand slipped!

[Balls Out 3]

And bad men turn good. Classic Gemmell conundrum. The good man fails and causes ill, the bad man sacrifices himself to save the many.... (I miss Gemmell)
But again whilst this may be happening, the WL world was beyond that and had "stabilised" somewhat. Subsistence survival is no longer the primary concern.

Yes, bad men turn good. In real life, however, I'm sure I could find many more examples of men giving into their base instincts, rather than rising up and becoming generous and selfless, particularly in dire situations. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, I don't know. I wish it weren't true, but that's been my experience.

Aaaah but you aren't "every man" you are a team of Desert Rangers sent from a stable region to establish a new base in a new region. And that mouth you turn away may have been someone who was a natural at farming, or medicine, or worse you turn him away and he turns to those who would use him against you. Every action has consequences...

The growth of a civilization or group is dependent on the resources that sustain them. If the rangers can afford to expand, that's great. I don't mean to suggest that they should turn everyone away without considering what they might offer them. It would be wise to be suspicious of strangers in the wasteland, however. As far as consequences go, being the nice guy can also be a good way to end up dead sooner. If you have resources, and others don't, you're going to be a target regardless of how you act toward them. Being nice might even make you look like prey. These things are anything but clear cut.

But in the end, the scenarios I'm describing are probably too bleak for Wasteland, it's true. I'm just glad the setting is more grey than black and white, and I hope it stays that way.

Consequences are the goal. Good ones, big and little that affect the way the game plays.

Absolutely.

I am reminded of Dragon Age: Origins.

That sounds like a pretty good system, actually. I played a thief in DA:O, but I didn't know stealing was tracked so closely. That's pretty cool. I did get caught stealing by the elves once though, and they did NOT take kindly to it. If I remember right, they even refused to barter with me any longer.

[Balls Out 3]

Then again, these require you get caught at least 3 times

May be the protagonist is compulsive kleptomaniac? Ah, the cruel world just doesn't understand pack rats!

I swear it was an accident! I didn't mean to try and steal your sword! My hand slipped!

The way I tend to role play my anti-hero characters, they have both a good and bad side to them. They like to help people out and all...but they also recognize that this makes them look good in the public eye. This is the perfect cover for when they decide to swipe something. They steal because they figure that anything that helps them get toward their end goal, the better. Sometimes saving the town from destruction helps them toward that goal, but other times it's stealing the really nice rifle from the mayor's bedroom.

Plus, I like doing good things in games, but also like robbery. So this kind of role playing justifies it.

[Woolfe]

And bad men turn good. Classic Gemmell conundrum. The good man fails and causes ill, the bad man sacrifices himself to save the many.... (I miss Gemmell)
But again whilst this may be happening, the WL world was beyond that and had "stabilised" somewhat. Subsistence survival is no longer the primary concern.

Yes, bad men turn good. In real life, however, I'm sure I could find many more examples of men giving into their base instincts, rather than rising up and becoming generous and selfless, particularly in dire situations. Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, I don't know. I wish it weren't true, but that's been my experience.

its true, altho it may just be that the good stories get lost in all the bad that seems to infest our sensationalist driven media at the moment. Journalistic integrity pffff that doesn't sell.

Aaaah but you aren't "every man" you are a team of Desert Rangers sent from a stable region to establish a new base in a new region. And that mouth you turn away may have been someone who was a natural at farming, or medicine, or worse you turn him away and he turns to those who would use him against you. Every action has consequences...

The growth of a civilization or group is dependent on the resources that sustain them. If the rangers can afford to expand, that's great. I don't mean to suggest that they should turn everyone away without considering what they might offer them. It would be wise to be suspicious of strangers in the wasteland, however. As far as consequences go, being the nice guy can also be a good way to end up dead sooner. If you have resources, and others don't, you're going to be a target regardless of how you act toward them. Being nice might even make you look like prey. These things are anything but clear cut.

All Very true, fortunately you are also armed to the teeth, and have been known to be not so nice to those who cross you

But in the end, the scenarios I'm describing are probably too bleak for Wasteland, it's true. I'm just glad the setting is more grey than black and white, and I hope it stays that way.

Yep, don't get me wrong I have no issue with the stuff you are talking about, its just that the setting for Wasteland is a bit more "positive(?)" overall with various societies actually at a stage where they are actively growing and indeed causing a whole different set of moral issues than just "survival".