NPC + Disabled Characters

Danikat · June 7

I've heard the 'arrow to the knee' line was supposed to be much rarer, so each playthrough there would only be a small number of guards saying it, but it was set up incorrectly (probably the person setting it up didn't know it wasn't meant to be a standard line) and it ended up being one of the things they all said, all the time.

So I think it was meant literally. It would be entirely plausible if there weren't so many of them saying it.

whitecrow · June 7

It's funny either way.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 8

Danikat wrote: »

I've heard the 'arrow to the knee' line was supposed to be much rarer, so each playthrough there would only be a small number of guards saying it, but it was set up incorrectly (probably the person setting it up didn't know it wasn't meant to be a standard line) and it ended up being one of the things they all said, all the time.

So I think it was meant literally. It would be entirely plausible if there weren't so many of them saying it.

According to the wikipedia page, it was meant to be rarer, and it had something to do with the adventurer tag.

I think that maybe, from what it sounds like, originally, it was supposed to show commonality with the PC over being an adventurer, and so wasn't meant to be said until later/be much rarer.

But, again from the wikipedia page, the player character gets that flag set pretty early on in the game (often before they encounter guards, due to going into one of the dungeons) and so they start encountering 'ex-adventurers' pretty quickly.

I am sure there is more to it as well, such as maybe not having more lines for the adventurer tag, so every time that gets picked, you hear the same line and so on.

katanagirl1 · June 8

Syldras wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, feeble old people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

Depends on the player. My Khajiit doesn’t kill his fellow Khajiit and avoids stealing from them. I generally don’t pickpocket slaves either. I try to avoid killing senches unless they attack me.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 9

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, feeble old people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

Depends on the player. My Khajiit doesn’t kill his fellow Khajiit and avoids stealing from them. I generally don’t pickpocket slaves either. I try to avoid killing senches unless they attack me.

To me, the difference is that you aren't saying remove the senche from the game, or make Khajiit NPCs unkillable/able to be stolen from.

The person that the quote was replying to seemed to be implying that disabled NPCs shouldn't be put in the game, because then they could be stolen from, which would be bad from a real world point of view, not a player morality.

Basically, I took it to mean that if being able to kill or steal from disabled NPCs are 'too evil' then it should be considered 'too evil' to kill or steal from any other innocent person. At least from a game standpoint. Character/individual player standpoints are different, and shouldn't be used to try to dictate what types of characters are in game or are allowed to be part of the justice system.

katanagirl1 · June 10

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, feeble old people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

Depends on the player. My Khajiit doesn’t kill his fellow Khajiit and avoids stealing from them. I generally don’t pickpocket slaves either. I try to avoid killing senches unless they attack me.

To me, the difference is that you aren't saying remove the senche from the game, or make Khajiit NPCs unkillable/able to be stolen from.

The person that the quote was replying to seemed to be implying that disabled NPCs shouldn't be put in the game, because then they could be stolen from, which would be bad from a real world point of view, not a player morality.

Basically, I took it to mean that if being able to kill or steal from disabled NPCs are 'too evil' then it should be considered 'too evil' to kill or steal from any other innocent person. At least from a game standpoint. Character/individual player standpoints are different, and shouldn't be used to try to dictate what types of characters are in game or are allowed to be part of the justice system.

Yeah I got the intent. I am just giving an example here of what I currently do. If they added disabled npcs I would likely not harm them but would not insist that others do so as well. This is just how I roleplay my character. It will be up to ZOS to decide to add them to the game and if they do then that would certainly mean they allow us to engage with them or not as we choose.

EDIT: I want to add that I have no love for the DB, it is a means to an end. I laughed during the sacrament dailies with the Speaker, he is just too thoroughly evil for his own good and too much to be believable. The death cult has tons of followers but it is hard for me to take it seriously. My original intent was to make my Khajiit a fine, upstanding citizen example of how not all Khajiits are thieves, but my housing interests required me to do some stealing in Murkmire to get any furnishing plans whatsoever, so I came up with a backstory (lol maybe a front story in this case) where she went crazy trying to decorate and went over to the dark side.

JemadarofCaerSalis · June 10

katanagirl1 wrote: »

JemadarofCaerSalis wrote: »

katanagirl1 wrote: »

Syldras wrote: »

wolfie1.0. wrote: »

Do you really want players to be able to run around and kill and steal from disabled npcs?

So murdering women, including possibly pregnant women, homeless people, war refugees, blind people, feeble old people, LGBT people, healers, slaves and beggars is okay, but if the character has a wooden leg (for example because it's a pirate - I know that's trope-y, but not impossible) then it's suddenly too evil?

If morals are important, I'd suggest not murdering anyone (or not joining a murder cult of all things). To differ between "innocent people who can be murdered" and "innocent people who can't be murdered" seems to be a rather strange idea to me...?

Depends on the player. My Khajiit doesn’t kill his fellow Khajiit and avoids stealing from them. I generally don’t pickpocket slaves either. I try to avoid killing senches unless they attack me.

To me, the difference is that you aren't saying remove the senche from the game, or make Khajiit NPCs unkillable/able to be stolen from.

The person that the quote was replying to seemed to be implying that disabled NPCs shouldn't be put in the game, because then they could be stolen from, which would be bad from a real world point of view, not a player morality.

Basically, I took it to mean that if being able to kill or steal from disabled NPCs are 'too evil' then it should be considered 'too evil' to kill or steal from any other innocent person. At least from a game standpoint. Character/individual player standpoints are different, and shouldn't be used to try to dictate what types of characters are in game or are allowed to be part of the justice system.

Yeah I got the intent. I am just giving an example here of what I currently do. If they added disabled npcs I would likely not harm them but would not insist that others do so as well. This is just how I roleplay my character. It will be up to ZOS to decide to add them to the game and if they do then that would certainly mean they allow us to engage with them or not as we choose.

EDIT: I want to add that I have no love for the DB, it is a means to an end. I laughed during the sacrament dailies with the Speaker, he is just too thoroughly evil for his own good and too much to be believable. The death cult has tons of followers but it is hard for me to take it seriously. My original intent was to make my Khajiit a fine, upstanding citizen example of how not all Khajiits are thieves, but my housing interests required me to do some stealing in Murkmire to get any furnishing plans whatsoever, so I came up with a backstory (lol maybe a front story in this case) where she went crazy trying to decorate and went over to the dark side.

I know what you mean with your edit.

I just did the DB, and it was mainly because of completionist. I wanted to get that zone done, and start exploring it.

I will admit I tend to be a bit of a thief, though I still wasn't fond of the thieves guild and I am *terrible* at pickpocketing. If it were possible, my character would basically strip towns down and haul it all away

As for stealing from or killing disabled characters? It would really depend on the character, as they would, hopefully, be relatively unique, and thus they wouldn't necessarily fall under the 'innocent' banner or the 'good' banner (whatever that means for your personal morals)

zaria · June 11

Well the prophet is blind, else its an lady in a weelchair in the antiquity starting location. Not moving so its in practice just an chair.
Think its some more blind peoples, but blindness is pretty easy to add compared to missing limbs.

If you want missing limbs play Kenshi, you probably want to loose your limbs there down the line as robotic limbs are better.

Elsonso · June 11

The blind people in this game see as well as the ones who aren’t.

Syldras · June 11

Elsonso wrote: »

The blind people in this game see as well as the ones who aren’t.

Sometimes there's no big difference between zombies and npcs who are supposed to have a functional brain either.