To be honest, I enjoyed the Fable 3 moral choice, it seems more like an actual moral choice than most games have. I wont spoil the whys for people who haven't played yet, but when you become ruler of Albion, you need to stop an enemy, and get two choices in various decisions while ruling .Do you become a brutal tyrant, amassing a fortune to combat the enemy, while crushing the people you have chosen to rule, or do you become the benevolent ruler, who helps the people, but will probably leave the coffers empty to fight the threat, leading to the slaughter of many of your subjects because you were caught unprepared. The only problem with the system is you can circumvent the problems of being a good person. If you were in this situation what would you do?
feel free to discuss other moral choice systems that worked(or didn't) as well, to compare.
EDIT: I typo'd the m in the second option, it should say, even if many die... sorry. the editor isn't letting me fix it.
EDIT 2: yes, the property thing totally negates the problem with being a good leader, which is a bad flaw in the otherwise good moral choice system as the ruler, please discuss other pros/cons of that particular moral choice system.
I enjoy Fable as a series, but the moral choice system is very unsatisfying for me. When you aren't being king, you are forced to take either black or white choices, with no grey area inbetween to choose from. I feel that a moral system should have more than just good and evil. I'd like it even more if they made the lines blurry so that it took some time to think about which choice is truly correct. That would be a good choice system.
They did a better job with the choices as king in Fable III, which is a step up, but those choices weren't available for the whole game, making them more of a rarity. They still had only two moral choices for each situation, however, which I feel is a bit disappointing.
It was an interesting idea, but it really brought the game to a screeching halt.
Itinerary for Day 281 of my rule. Wake up, listen to my financial adviser drone on about sewage problem for several minutes before he finally unlocks the door and I get to go to my throne room, where some sanctimonious do-gooder and Stephen Fry spend several minutes debating the issue, I then decide I want a whore house and damn the Karmic consequences. Before going to bed, I am forced to go out and find a lost dog in order to collect a 500,000 gold piece reward. I decide to put the reward in my checking account in order to get good karma, because putting it in my wallet is an evil choice... I immediately withdraw the money from the Treasury and spend 200,000 on whores.
I think the problem is Fable is so incredibly superficial with its morality system. Being pure & good means you get extra pretty points, while being vile & evil means you get ugly and decent people don't want to have sex with you. The game offers up various good & evil missions, but there's the problem of not going out and doing a mission in order to not get bad karma. Opening up new content is a pretty big part of playing a game. If choosing the good decision gets me a mini-game, I'm all for it; but if doing the good thing means I can't play three side-quests, what's the point?
It's sort of like being thin in the game. There's barely a reason to eat food in the game, so the only reason to do so would be to open a Demon Door. Morality just really doesn't play into the game mechanics at all, it just determines what sort of things people say when you run past.
I ended up getting the best ending, because I started buying property early on. Didn't raise the rent, but managed to raise the 6.5 million only breaking one promise. Only bad choices I made were the ones that opened up content I wanted, like the whore house and the mine under the lake.
never played fable but happened to like Black&White with its morality system, because i dont think there should be "punishments" for choosing the dark side. i think its common sense. they have cookies after all.
never played fable but happened to like Black&White with its morality system, because i dont think there should be "punishments" for choosing the dark side. i think its common sense. they have cookies after all.
Given that the game lets you go from one side to the other and back again, I think they should just use it to gain you access to different parts of the game. If you're evil, you get to hang out with the bandits and run missions for them. Want to repent, go to a Church and have the video game equivalent of saying 500 Hail Marys. Then go hand out with the goodies across the road and do some side missions for them.
I did like how in II you were given various decisions that determined if an area went good or bad. You might lose a side mission or two in the process, but it wasn't so big of a deal that I felt compelled to replay the game the other way. Mostly it was a superficial choice and allowed me to customize the game to my personality, which I think is what Fable does a lot better than other games. A shame III didn't have more of that.
One thing that amuses me about Fable are the dodgy quests with good moral pay-outs.
Such as, the mission you're given by the ghost in Fable II. Right from the jump, you're on morally dubious ground. The only truly moral decision in this situation is to tell the ghost to shove it, because she's essentially asking you to destroy a man's life. Only after you agree to it that you find out the particulars... so you're left with two choices that are really awful.
The evil choice is to break up with him, which leads him to suicide. The good choice is to marry him. At the time, I already had a lesbian wife in tow, so the good choice required me to commit bigamy.
Later in the game, this guy asks you to go steal various religious artifacts of a curiously eatable/drinkable nature. First time out I was suspicious, but the second fetch quest I knew he was playing me. Still, the only way to get the good ending out of this is to keep stealing stuff and do the right thing at the end of the quest.
In part III, we're given a quest by the twin brothers to get them the book that they clearly aren't responsible enough to be using. At one point, their mother decides to trust you with the book because you're better able to protect it. And, of course, we give it to the twins because that's the only way to get our Guild Seals and that opens up another couple of missions. But if you were truly good, would you be doing any of this?
And Fable really isn't that big of an offender in these matters. Games are constantly trying to set up situations with more dubious moral implications. There's a mission in Fallout 3 where the only truly good outcome to the mission would be to walk away. Any other action, whether you do the right thing or the so-called wrong thing results in a whole lot of innocent people getting killed, because the people you're guilted into helping are *ahem* planning a murderous assault. Kind of pushes the naive button to think that peacefully getting them into the apartment complex will lead to any good result.
I really think the game should just keep track of your tendency. Maybe a Seven Deadly Sins sort of thing. If you prove to be violent toward peaceful people, then there should be a much more defensive posture when you enter peaceful settlements (either forcing you to surrender your weapons or firing on you if you unholster your weapon). The more times you get caught stealing, the higher merchants should charge you to make up for it. If you run around shagging anything that moves in Fable, then more prudish characters should resist your advances. If you're evil enough, then maybe the bandits accept you as one of them and stop attacking you, allowing you to lead raiding parties if you so choose. If you're good enough, then law enforcement would treat you the same way. And different camps should give you better access to different equipment. Bandits would have better weapons, while settlements might have better medical care or armor.
The point being, I don't think there's any real way you can force a simple karmic alignment on people and make it really meaningful. In Fallout 3, I did ever quest the good way, but because I stole & hacked a lot, I was thoroughly wicked... and it made no impact on the game whatsoever. Same is pretty much true in Fable, where you're allowed to misbehave, but the game does have a tendency to push the moral choice on you. In Fable II I was trolling through town collecting a bunch of prostitutes for an orgy and all of them are nagging me for an engagement ring... not even the whores were truly dedicated to their wicked lifestyle.
Fable III was attempting to grapple with a serious question, but when the answer to the question can be as simple as "plug your Xbox controller in and leave the console on over-night", then you've presented the audience with an ethical dilemma that inadvertently has a very easy answer.
I haven't got to the king part yet, but I know about it, and I thought I could cheat my way into saving everyone while keeping my promises by building up a buttload of cash to start myself out with via real estate and jobs.
but when I learned the needed amount of cash, I realized it would take a looooong while before I get the needed cash......
the moral choice in Fable is indeed an improvement, It's intriguing to find out what you'd do in a morallly grey situation, also I think a moral choice thing should have the choices carry outcomes that have strong effects gameplay or storywise, that life or death choice Logan gives you at the start of the game is a pretty good example of it.
The one moral choice that I flat-out didn't accept was The Mercenary, the first boss of the Fable III.
So, here's a guy who at best is completely amoral and cares only for money, who is now pledging his allegiance to me at the point of a sword. If I'm a king in this era, this guy dies, unless he's bringing something a hell of a lot bigger to the table. This has nothing to do with good or evil, this is simple practicality. Sparing enemies because they say they're sorry means that there's no consequences for scheming against you. At the very least, this guy gets tossed in a dungeon for a decade or more. Sparing his men is a solid decision, but ring-leaders *have* to be punished.
And I still find the loss of purity points from eating meat in the game hilarious. Vegetarian was barely an option back then. Famine was a fact a life. You ate what was available and didn't quibble about the morality of killing a defenseless widdle bunny.
I haven't got to the king part yet, but I know about it, and I thought I could cheat my way into saving everyone while keeping my promises by building up a buttload of cash to start myself out with via real estate and jobs.
but when I learned the needed amount of cash, I realized it would take a looooong while before I get the needed cash......
Doesn't really take all that long, especially if you're running around looking for Gnomes and Silver keys. You just have to make sure you invest in real estate before you start seriously looking for stuff. And there's at least 3 million you can make via Demon Doors and Silver Keys. The whore house option is also really good, since it nets you a lot of money and is a lot more fun than boring children.
One thing that amuses me about Fable are the dodgy quests with good moral pay-outs.
Such as, the mission you're given by the ghost in Fable II. Right from the jump, you're on morally dubious ground. The only truly moral decision in this situation is to tell the ghost to shove it, because she's essentially asking you to destroy a man's life. Only after you agree to it that you find out the particulars... so you're left with two choices that are really awful.
The evil choice is to break up with him, which leads him to suicide. The good choice is to marry him. At the time, I already had a lesbian wife in tow, so the good choice required me to commit bigamy.
Later in the game, this guy asks you to go steal various religious artifacts of a curiously eatable/drinkable nature. First time out I was suspicious, but the second fetch quest I knew he was playing me. Still, the only way to get the good ending out of this is to keep stealing stuff and do the right thing at the end of the quest.
In part III, we're given a quest by the twin brothers to get them the book that they clearly aren't responsible enough to be using. At one point, their mother decides to trust you with the book because you're better able to protect it. And, of course, we give it to the twins because that's the only way to get our Guild Seals and that opens up another couple of missions. But if you were truly good, would you be doing any of this?
And Fable really isn't that big of an offender in these matters. Games are constantly trying to set up situations with more dubious moral implications. There's a mission in Fallout 3 where the only truly good outcome to the mission would be to walk away. Any other action, whether you do the right thing or the so-called wrong thing results in a whole lot of innocent people getting killed, because the people you're guilted into helping are *ahem* planning a murderous assault. Kind of pushes the naive button to think that peacefully getting them into the apartment complex will lead to any good result.
I really think the game should just keep track of your tendency. Maybe a Seven Deadly Sins sort of thing. If you prove to be violent toward peaceful people, then there should be a much more defensive posture when you enter peaceful settlements (either forcing you to surrender your weapons or firing on you if you unholster your weapon). The more times you get caught stealing, the higher merchants should charge you to make up for it. If you run around shagging anything that moves in Fable, then more prudish characters should resist your advances. If you're evil enough, then maybe the bandits accept you as one of them and stop attacking you, allowing you to lead raiding parties if you so choose. If you're good enough, then law enforcement would treat you the same way. And different camps should give you better access to different equipment. Bandits would have better weapons, while settlements might have better medical care or armor.
The point being, I don't think there's any real way you can force a simple karmic alignment on people and make it really meaningful. In Fallout 3, I did ever quest the good way, but because I stole & hacked a lot, I was thoroughly wicked... and it made no impact on the game whatsoever. Same is pretty much true in Fable, where you're allowed to misbehave, but the game does have a tendency to push the moral choice on you. In Fable II I was trolling through town collecting a bunch of prostitutes for an orgy and all of them are nagging me for an engagement ring... not even the whores were truly dedicated to their wicked lifestyle.
Fable III was attempting to grapple with a serious question, but when the answer to the question can be as simple as "plug your Xbox controller in and leave the console on over-night", then you've presented the audience with an ethical dilemma that inadvertently has a very easy answer.
so did you prefer the faction system in fallout New Vegas?
EDIT: on the forced on moral choice system, I have to laud the force unleashed 2 for actually giving the options "light side" and "dark side" at the end of the game
I loved Fable 3, but the coolest part of the game, Part 2, needs to be much longer. It was new and fun! The moral choices in that section were fantastic, but there wasn't enough!
I took the moral third option: Buy some overpriced properties, put a piece of duct-tape over the left analog stick to make my character walk around in circles, went to the bookstore, came back, won game, and cursed peter molyneux once more. The final boss in fable 4 should be him.
Note: The hell is with all the fable 3 topics now? It's been out for months already.
One thing that amuses me about Fable are the dodgy quests with good moral pay-outs.
Such as, the mission you're given by the ghost in Fable II. Right from the jump, you're on morally dubious ground. The only truly moral decision in this situation is to tell the ghost to shove it, because she's essentially asking you to destroy a man's life. Only after you agree to it that you find out the particulars... so you're left with two choices that are really awful.
The evil choice is to break up with him, which leads him to suicide. The good choice is to marry him. At the time, I already had a lesbian wife in tow, so the good choice required me to commit bigamy.
Later in the game, this guy asks you to go steal various religious artifacts of a curiously eatable/drinkable nature. First time out I was suspicious, but the second fetch quest I knew he was playing me. Still, the only way to get the good ending out of this is to keep stealing stuff and do the right thing at the end of the quest.
In part III, we're given a quest by the twin brothers to get them the book that they clearly aren't responsible enough to be using. At one point, their mother decides to trust you with the book because you're better able to protect it. And, of course, we give it to the twins because that's the only way to get our Guild Seals and that opens up another couple of missions. But if you were truly good, would you be doing any of this?
And Fable really isn't that big of an offender in these matters. Games are constantly trying to set up situations with more dubious moral implications. There's a mission in Fallout 3 where the only truly good outcome to the mission would be to walk away. Any other action, whether you do the right thing or the so-called wrong thing results in a whole lot of innocent people getting killed, because the people you're guilted into helping are *ahem* planning a murderous assault. Kind of pushes the naive button to think that peacefully getting them into the apartment complex will lead to any good result.
I really think the game should just keep track of your tendency. Maybe a Seven Deadly Sins sort of thing. If you prove to be violent toward peaceful people, then there should be a much more defensive posture when you enter peaceful settlements (either forcing you to surrender your weapons or firing on you if you unholster your weapon). The more times you get caught stealing, the higher merchants should charge you to make up for it. If you run around shagging anything that moves in Fable, then more prudish characters should resist your advances. If you're evil enough, then maybe the bandits accept you as one of them and stop attacking you, allowing you to lead raiding parties if you so choose. If you're good enough, then law enforcement would treat you the same way. And different camps should give you better access to different equipment. Bandits would have better weapons, while settlements might have better medical care or armor.
The point being, I don't think there's any real way you can force a simple karmic alignment on people and make it really meaningful. In Fallout 3, I did ever quest the good way, but because I stole & hacked a lot, I was thoroughly wicked... and it made no impact on the game whatsoever. Same is pretty much true in Fable, where you're allowed to misbehave, but the game does have a tendency to push the moral choice on you. In Fable II I was trolling through town collecting a bunch of prostitutes for an orgy and all of them are nagging me for an engagement ring... not even the whores were truly dedicated to their wicked lifestyle.
Fable III was attempting to grapple with a serious question, but when the answer to the question can be as simple as "plug your Xbox controller in and leave the console on over-night", then you've presented the audience with an ethical dilemma that inadvertently has a very easy answer.
so did you prefer the faction system in fallout New Vegas?
EDIT: on the forced on moral choice system, I have to laud the force unleashed 2 for actually giving the options "light side" and "dark side" at the end of the game
Mostly liked the faction system. I think they could have gone a bit further with it, such as if your karma got bad enough, the Fiends or other bandit group would let you crash with them. Such a system would require the occasional Olive Branch be extended.
I think you could probably set up Factions using something similar to the RPG alignments (Lawful Good, Chaotic Evil, etc.). Some camps put up with you pretty much no matter what you do. Others give you limited access regardless of alignment so long as you follow the rules. Still others refuse you entry unless your alignment is true. Such as Slavers are businessmen, so they'd let anyone enter the camp, but cross them and you have an enemy for life. Reavers would require an evil karma to join. Random bandits would attack or say hi depending on whatever their mood is at the moment. A really hard-line faction mode such as New Vegas is one of those systems built to make you play the game two or three times to see all the endings... but I would like to see that sort of system adapted to a more linear RPG. More of a customization system, with you surrounding yourself with the sort of allies you prefer... whether there's one set ending or multiple ones.
I'm not really big into role-playing, but I notice that most games are really geared toward good choices. If you try to be evil, you still end up in the role of protector, which isn't always a perfect fit. If I'm running around the kingdom killing everything in my path, then I'm not really any better than the evil I'm supposed to be protecting them from. But if I slowly morph the countryside to my image, then I'm just making the kingdom safe for my type of villainy.
As superficial as Fable is, it does seem to have an element of this sort of customization. If you follow Reaver's lead in the finale, you can transform the kingdom into a paradise for industry at the expense of the people in it... and the game map is forever altered because of it. That's kind of cool. I would love to see more of that in games.
That aspect of it was pretty awesome. The property system completely destroys it, but the concept was great. The rest of the game, however, feels... arbitrary. Most of your choices won't have much effect on the metanarrative, not like they did in Fable II. The first choice was awesome, and the ruler choices were interesting, but outside of that I think it could have been done better.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
