This is exceptional, but....

[Ciaina]

Consider it a plea.

The only real gripe I have has nothing to do with the state of the game. OBVIOUSLY being in alpha there are so many pieces that need smoothing, or changing completely.
Even naval battle, as unfinished as it is, shows great strategical potential.

The problem is with the setting.
I get that you want to insert some form of "morality system". But this is 40k, don't fall for the cheap solutions.
If you have an unsanctioned psyker onboard, and it ends up involountarily summoning demons, you should pay a HEAVY price if you don't shoot it in the head.
I get it, some people want to be the "nice guys". It's not the psycker fault. Not directly. It's a victim.
But if you want to be a shortsighted, goody two shoes you SHOULD pay the price for it, just as if you want to go around murdering innocents.

Keep the psyker? It's gonna end up screwing your ship over. Leave it on a planet? I hope you don't like the people living there, because either they are going to lynch it, or they will die horribly. Yeah, a bolter to the head IS the kinder option with less innocent victims. It's WARHAMMER.

I understand the difficulty to balance "morality" in this setting, but considering that modern time sensibilities would spell DOOM in the warhammer 40k universe (for oneself and the people around you) this should be implemented.

And if some people get offended by how things work, well it's their own damn fault. Not expecting grimdark and misery from 40k it's like entering a pizza place and be angrily surprised that all they got is pizza.

It's a special level of stupid, one that SHOULD NOT BE CATERED TO.

[moffaloff]

I'm not 100% sure, but don't Rogue Traders and members of the Inquisition get pretty much free reign to do as they please? This applies to working or associating with Xenos and (un)sanctioned Pyskers.

Do you mean you want to see more heavy negative affects, in-game, associated with these types of decisions (like keeping a psyker alive that has opened a gate to the warp)? That might work.

All of the above is genuinely wanting to see how this could play out in game.

[Goubios]

actually a rogue trader is free even from an inquisitor in his realm, but its not a good thought to get on the wrong side with someone who has a planet killer missile in his arsenal ... actually what you are saying is on the spot ... the 40k universe is described more accurately with the phrase " to be 1 among untold billions" one psycher one less there is actually no problem .... 10000 of them are sacrificed per day in order to keep a dead man alive. SO actually the most proper way has to be that every sensitive or kind decision to be paid at the very least with a sad result.

[rakshasa72]

Pay attention to your precious Inquisitor because he may a bigger Heretic then the Unsanctioned Psyker you are so worried about...

[Squaul]

y'all are so short sigthed it's sad the problem isn't good thing happening in 40 k PLOT TWIST IN AN INFINITE UNIVERSE THERE IS AN INFINITY OF THINGS HAPENING EVERYDAY !

No the problem like everysingle fking time is FREEDOM
punishing someone just to punish it because he's kind or logical or rationnal or curious ins't good in anyway same with the opposite.

It's should be a living world period. sometimes you are kind and it' backfire sometime you are and surprisingly it doesn't period. But than you can still choose to modify your choice like saving someone to kill it at any time afterward and not being locked with it all the game allong .
40 k isn't binary real life isn't binary deal with it.

So yes i hope it won't be woke nor manicheen not even at 1%.
But you are as much as binary and problematic than what your complaining about.

Why you wouldn't be allowed to be kind ? Is it heresy now ? NO.
Nothing stop you from being "nice" or "bad" it depend on your very being even if having someone like us in the 40 k univers isn't maybe ultra canon and so might have a inappropriate vision for the setting but hey who care.

In 40 k again there is also good and rationnality sure you can be mean to someone but if there si no reason to do it so ... why would you do it ? It's just a waste of ressources.

Now on the case of a "infected psyker" why wouldn't you be allowed to keep it and protect it at all cost even if it's ridiculous isn't more 40k esque than killing it because of "reasons" ?

Again it's not a problem of ♥♥♥♥ propaganda or agenda it's a problem of quality and freedom.

THERE IS ENOUGH shadow and unseen part in 40k universe + with what we know that know and think that someone for x reasons wich can be be infinites btw to keep a "lost psyker".


Now what i think you might be afraid of without knowing it more is the lack of : DYNAMIC AND INFINITE EVENTS . That might or not happen to you because of x or not reasons and i would totaly agree.

So having for exemple a "lost/ill psyker" should have a chance to proc a serie of really large and diverses events wich can be shorts or long etc ... but at the same time it should have a chance to not.
The only mattering part that is left is then the freedom of this events and choices if it's just "duuuh every x turn you get a warp gate in the middle of your ship and it's a an endless fight nothing more to it " that's freaking boring and pointless.

But then if theses new events that might be possible only because you made a choice that you think is not right or possible opens to a new branch of choice and event as silly as they can be like idk going through the warp get to worship the chaos or to kill as much deamons as you can or to find some lost relics etc ... what ever the imagination is the only limits or use ti at some sort of cheap shipping ship system for goodies ? idk you see the pictures .


In resume events be dynamic and "living" it should open to other events and choices that are in command of the players will and morality BUT not of a arbitrary exterior morality or will.
The events should be "infinites" or kinda not all infinites are equal anyway.

Like obviously if it's just a "yes or no" or just being a "one shot quest or dialog" it's not good at all.

[Freak4Leeks]

id love if the game actively punished you for wanting to be nice given the setting it would definitely fit, the nicer you are the harder it gets and see people on the forums complain that being nice isn't gonna get them undying adoration from everyone.

[Buttwheat]

Is it like the corruption mechanic in the table top rpg? that could work well.

[markelphoenix]

Rogue Trader is Rogue Trader. If the setting was you being a Space Marine or something like that, then, yeah...Rogue Traders are the rare example of a free bird in the setting.

[Nobelissimos]

I think you're all seriously misunderstanding what hes saying. The law isn't the issue, it's the consequences. Even if you are totally free from any responsibility or law, it doesn't somehow make the very real danger of witches disappear.

This isn't one of those cases where it's a law created due to ignorance, corruption, tyranny, some horrible misunderstanding or some other flawed reason. In almost all cases, psykers are dangerous. Majority of psykers are fed to big E because they are unstable. Some are capable enough to get trained, and only the trained and soul-binded astropaths (from what I understand, maybe im mistaken) are really considered safe and don't need constant watch (compared to other sanctioned psykers which aren't soul binded), but even then they aren't immune to deamons or warp entities or some other magical BS messing up their day and whatever ship or planet they inhabit.

It's degrees of danger and you usually have someone around ready to put a bullet in their head if things go bad. Being a Rogue Trader doesn't change that. Maybe you put your trust into a psyker despite being a clear danger, maybe it works out, but maybe theres some casualties or worse consequences.

[elbentzo]

Originally posted by Nobelissimos:

It's degrees of danger and you usually have someone around ready to put a bullet in their head if things go bad. Being a Rogue Trader doesn't change that. Maybe you put your trust into a psyker despite being a clear danger, maybe it works out, but maybe theres some casualties or worse consequences.

Yes, exactly. The PLAYER should choose if they put their trust into a psyker. And MAYBE it wokrs out. What the OP is saying is basically "I have a particular vision of how 40K should be and in my vision it DOESN'T work out, so Owlcats need to make it so that my vision is the truth and that trusting an unsanctioned psyker should NOT work out".
There are many aspects to the 40K franchise, many works of art and fiction, many tones and scenarios. Just because you read a Dan Abnett book and found it super cool doesn't mean that things can't possibly work out in a positive way, or that hope and goodness aren't sometimes rewarded in 40K. The player should be able to choose if they take a chance on being ``good" at the risk of inviting some horror to their doorstep, and yes, if Owlcats want to make that bet work out for the best sometimes, it's perfectly fine. We don't all have to conform to one person's vision of what is right and what is wrong for a 40K game.

[Nobelissimos]

Originally posted by Freak4Leeks:

id love if the game actively punished you for wanting to be nice given the setting it would definitely fit, the nicer you are the harder it gets and see people on the forums complain that being nice isn't gonna get them undying adoration from everyone.

I think theres a lot of people who really don't understand the setting or get mixed ideas of whats going on.

Being "nice" isn't the problem. While I do like the opportunity to place a bastard or someone who is overly pragmatic, or even a wine sipping egomaniac, these should all be options alongside with being a "good guy", and have good or bad or otherwise consequences of their own in different situations. While 40k is often a coldly pragmatic and brutal setting, where any lord will see a few million killed to save a few billion, or even throw a few billion lives away to save the industrial capacity and resources of an important world, it doens't always have to be on this scale or this kind of situations, and sometimes not always so dark. There is room for more personal and humanist scenarios and choices. But the defining traits of the setting shouldn't just be thrown out the window, the warp is still there and all the problems it creates is still there.

There should be a good balance as with any rpg, just understanding the darker standards.

As a side note I never did care for how so many RPGs basically have two or so "routes", evil and good or something along those lines, and it's almost always linear. Almost always picking all the obvious "good" options gives you the best results. But at the same time, forcing you to be a sociopath and making your character's personality feel all over the place all the time to get the "best" options isn't great either.

All in all, the Tyranids are still consuming the galaxy, the Necrons are still awakening, Chaos, the Warp, xenos, traitors, and every other horror is still out there murdering mankind every day of every year in all corners of the galaxy. Be a hero, save some lives, decide not to execute some potential heretics, there are still billions dying on some war front somewhere else.

[georgeAM]

I see a lot of people talking about how they want freedom to do whatever they wany when talking about games with decisions that change the plot, but in my opinion too much freedom in especial when theres no real consequences sometimes can be annoying as having no freedom at all.

like when playing skyrim and i made a thief assassin character menber of the assassins guild who also a menber of the companions and bards guilds, ITS MAKE NO SENCE, my character is a know bad person every guard in every city comments about how they will ''keep a eye on me'', and the guilds who are suppose to hate me seems to be fine in having a assassin among them.

I think games , RPGs with a heavy emphasis on story should have outcomes that make sence.
You want to keep a dangerous character who can open gates to hell and have no control over the power?
FINE but dont be surprised when a demon invasion happens later kill your crew forcing you to waste resources to kill them all and buy a new crew.

[Gregorovitch]

"Good guy" and "Bad guy" are relative terms, especially in the WH40K universe it seems to me. However as far as this game is concerned although no doubt trying to play a total goodie-two-shoes will probably not go well, being reasonable and looking after your people, so long as they behave themselves, seems to be fully supported and rewarded in the game.

For example there is an incident with a rebellion in a certain sector of the ship. Your first officer has ordered the storm troopers in to ruthlessly suppress the rebels. A young first lieutenant forces her way into you presence saying this action is unfair in the circumstances and likely to lead to widespread unrest amongst the whole crew. Your first officer is very angry about this intervention.

You have several options here. You can have this lieutenant flogged or executed for her impertinence. You can just admonish her and let the first office continue the repression. Or you can decide to investigate the matter for yourself - to the great annoyance of your first officer.

If you go down to investigate yourself you find out that the evidence supporting the first officer's repression is flimsy at best. But the demands of the rebel leaders are also unreasonable. However you have access to a firm but fair decision that is clearly reasonable. The rebels agree to your decision and are very happy that you have personally taken the trouble to deal with the situation.

Your first officer is not happy however. You get two further conversations with him about it.

In the first one he accuses you of weakness and failing to live up to the standards of your predecessor, his beloved previous boss. You have to choose your words carefully here. If you pick right, he will see the logic in what you say and respect your resolve even if he doesn't agree with you.

Later in the second conversation he comes to you with a follow up report on the rebel sector situation. He says the rebels have indeed fulfilled their end of the agreement and that both morale and productivity have increased. So much so that the effect has spread to neighbouring sectors. He says the evidence he had based his initial decisions on has proved to be false. He says he was wrong and that he has learned something from this. He says he now recognises that you displayed strong and decisive leadership in resolving the matter.

So firm but fair with you own people, occasionally ruthless with enemies/opponents and always keeping an eye on profit seems to be a fully supported and rewarded alignment mix in this game. This is not seen as weak, and being weak is probably the biggest sin you could commit.

[moffaloff]

Originally posted by Gregorovitch:

"Good guy" and "Bad guy" are relative terms, especially in the WH40K universe it seems to me. However as far as this game is concerned although no doubt trying to play a total goodie-two-shoes will probably not go well, being reasonable and looking after your people, so long as they behave themselves, seems to be fully supported and rewarded in the game.

For example there is an incident with a rebellion in a certain sector of the ship. Your first officer has ordered the storm troopers in to ruthlessly suppress the rebels. A young first lieutenant forces her way into you presence saying this action is unfair in the circumstances and likely to lead to widespread unrest amongst the whole crew. Your first officer is very angry about this intervention.

You have several options here. You can have this lieutenant flogged or executed for her impertinence. You can just admonish her and let the first office continue the repression. Or you can decide to investigate the matter for yourself - to the great annoyance of your first officer.

If you go down to investigate yourself you find out that the evidence supporting the first officer's repression is flimsy at best. But the demands of the rebel leaders are also unreasonable. However you have access to a firm but fair decision that is clearly reasonable. The rebels agree to your decision and are very happy that you have personally taken the trouble to deal with the situation.

Your first officer is not happy however. You get two further conversations with him about it.

In the first one he accuses you of weakness and failing to live up to the standards of your predecessor, his beloved previous boss. You have to choose your words carefully here. If you pick right, he will see the logic in what you say and respect your resolve even if he doesn't agree with you.

Later in the second conversation he comes to you with a follow up report on the rebel sector situation. He says the rebels have indeed fulfilled their end of the agreement and that both morale and productivity have increased. So much so that the effect has spread to neighbouring sectors. He says the evidence he had based his initial decisions on has proved to be false. He says he was wrong and that he has learned something from this. He says he now recognises that you displayed strong and decisive leadership in resolving the matter.

So firm but fair with you own people, occasionally ruthless with enemies/opponents and always keeping an eye on profit seems to be a fully supported and rewarded alignment mix in this game. This is not seen as weak, and being weak is probably the biggest sin you could commit.

Talks a lot sense

[Nobelissimos]

Originally posted by georgeAM:

I see a lot of people talking about how they want freedom to do whatever they wany when talking about games with decisions that change the plot, but in my opinion too much freedom in especial when theres no real consequences sometimes can be annoying as having no freedom at all.

like when playing skyrim and i made a thief assassin character menber of the assassins guild who also a menber of the companions and bards guilds, ITS MAKE NO SENCE, my character is a know bad person every guard in every city comments about how they will ''keep a eye on me'', and the guilds who are suppose to hate me seems to be fine in having a assassin among them.

I think games , RPGs with a heavy emphasis on story should have outcomes that make sence.
You want to keep a dangerous character who can open gates to hell and have no control over the power?
FINE but dont be surprised when a demon invasion happens later kill your crew forcing you to waste resources to kill them all and buy a new crew.

Yeah I was not a big fan of a lot of changes made to TES games after Morrowind, especially stuff like that. Being the head of every major guild at the same time feels silly. Well constructed walls and limitations can be a great thing to a story.