Well said Gandelon.
I think the gist of what I mean is starting to become clearer to me as this thread lengthens. It seems that my problem is that the game (or computer) is failing to do its job. Whereas in a table top RPG the DM would not allow the PCs to kill all in sight for the sake of character advancemenrt, not without penalty. Most games do not balk at this action. This causes a breakdown in suspension of disbelief (I think it's the term). You take an oath and proceed to break it, over and over, with no reprecussion. This is the hardest thing for a game's AI to monitor. It would've been much better to leave out such a restrictive Oath and not leave it to the gamer to police his/her party.
So kill all you want, good NPCs or bad, but there should be some kind of adverse affect that causes the player to find a different way to solve a puzzle after they've killed an important NPC in the game. You'd have to find a way around it, when unfortunately, you would need something later on, from the NPC you just offed.
I started a new game yesterday with my same powerful characters and killed the assassin who eventually kills Gareth. Gareth should live and change the whole direction of the game. I don't think killing him has changed anything, somehow Gareth will be murdered by the Assassin and I will get the Quest later and have to kill him again. This game had so many missed opportunities. I still loved it, though.
Mark
|