Search Results
7/7/2025, 2:04:45 AM
>>3796163
No one is truly 100% selfless due to being human. Even if everything you did was in benefit of another person, it can be argued as a selfish reward due to how helping people makes YOU feel good. Despite this, there are people who certainly try to be 100% in both real life and games. It's even easier in games due to how simple it is to reject rewards if given an option, but you probably got a reward in a different way anyways. Other people may not give a shit about (You) trying to be good, but you can certainly try. That's what makes it noble; trying to do good even if you may not succeed in some way, including the concept of 100% selflessness and 0% selfishness.
>>3796189
It can be, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but when most people say they want to do good, they're probably giving it a reasonable best effort (even if flawed in some ways you find disagreeable). It's very unlikely that anyone who says this is acting like the Flesh-Eater Courts from Warhammer Age of Sigmar who are so schizophrenic that they think they're eating a 100% vegan approved plant based diet when in reality they are eating human baby flesh which had been freshly harvested and grilled.
>>3796592
In the end though, the topic is about decisions in RPGs. Forget about morality when making raw gameplay (EX: combat) that even a tool-assist AI could do, it's just a wise idea in general to have choices in a RPG. You get to try different possibilities if you replay, your actions should feel "meaningful" in a sense that two different choices shouldn't lead to the same outcome (barring justified exceptions), and you get to focus on what you think is worth doing. Hell, you could even try moralfaggotry as a "good playthrough" the same way that people who want to be good will try "evil playthroughs" for fun and replayability. Think of it like choosing to do a pacifist playthrough vs 100% kill-em-all genocide playthrough in Postal 2, even if Postal 2 is not the best example.
No one is truly 100% selfless due to being human. Even if everything you did was in benefit of another person, it can be argued as a selfish reward due to how helping people makes YOU feel good. Despite this, there are people who certainly try to be 100% in both real life and games. It's even easier in games due to how simple it is to reject rewards if given an option, but you probably got a reward in a different way anyways. Other people may not give a shit about (You) trying to be good, but you can certainly try. That's what makes it noble; trying to do good even if you may not succeed in some way, including the concept of 100% selflessness and 0% selfishness.
>>3796189
It can be, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, but when most people say they want to do good, they're probably giving it a reasonable best effort (even if flawed in some ways you find disagreeable). It's very unlikely that anyone who says this is acting like the Flesh-Eater Courts from Warhammer Age of Sigmar who are so schizophrenic that they think they're eating a 100% vegan approved plant based diet when in reality they are eating human baby flesh which had been freshly harvested and grilled.
>>3796592
In the end though, the topic is about decisions in RPGs. Forget about morality when making raw gameplay (EX: combat) that even a tool-assist AI could do, it's just a wise idea in general to have choices in a RPG. You get to try different possibilities if you replay, your actions should feel "meaningful" in a sense that two different choices shouldn't lead to the same outcome (barring justified exceptions), and you get to focus on what you think is worth doing. Hell, you could even try moralfaggotry as a "good playthrough" the same way that people who want to be good will try "evil playthroughs" for fun and replayability. Think of it like choosing to do a pacifist playthrough vs 100% kill-em-all genocide playthrough in Postal 2, even if Postal 2 is not the best example.
Page 1