I think "PG-13" is what we should be shooting for. Captain America: The First Avenger was PG-13 and it had Bucky getting blown off a train and over a cliff, seemingly to his death, despite Cap's best efforts to save him. I'd allow stuff like that. Nothing too gory, but some tragedy here and there.

Considering the fact that there is planned to be a Four Color and an Realistic path for characters ... perhaps the "you can't save everyone" lesson could be put into the Realistic path CHOICE and left out of the Four Color path?

You'll have to get Tannim to comment on what the state of the plans are for that, but last I heard, Players will be given a Choice of Path for the kinds of stories they want their characters to experience.

RottenLuck wrote:

Remember even CoH has done this with the "Who Will Die" Story arc. The story for CoT could be advertised as being dramatic just like the Who Will Die story. So there no surprise you didn't save the day ending, you go in knowing someone will not get out.
The very start of Batman started with this. Bruce seeing his family die before him and being helpless to save them. Krypton going boom even killed Sups Mother and Father. The Original Superman Movie had Pa Kent die of a heart attack to teach Clark this lesson. As powerful as Superman is he couldn't save even his own Adopted Father. The Reboot had him die via a twister.

Again I'm not fundamentally against this kind of story being in CoT. I was mainly just considering the general "shock and gore" implications. Even in these examples you just cited there wasn't much in the way of blood and gore displayed and as long as you're not really asking for that kind of thing in CoT then it would again probably be fine.

I, too, would like to be presented with the occasional 'tough decision.' I think it brings an emotional investment to the character and, by extension, the game. Especially if that decision has a consequence in later missions. I might be a bit disappointed if my decisions caused a 'lockout' of certain missions, but I could understand it. (Hey, that's what alts are for.) With the alignment system we've been shown, I'd kind of expect to have to make decisions about precisely how I go about completing a mission crop up fairly often. This would naturally affect my interactions with NPCs and so on. That's an expected game mechanic.

But if once in a while you are told: "You can stop the train wreck, or rescue the cruise ship. Choose." I think that would add to the drama. And kids can handle that kind of thing. In my opinion, they should be TAUGHT to handle that kind of thing. If I were writing that kind of a scenario, I would have the player be thanked and praised by the people he saved, then later overhear a news cast about the casualties of the *other* disaster. It might be a bit much, I guess I should say too realistic, to have them lynched (figuratively) for not saving EVERYone. OTOH, Maybe this could lead to a 'redemption' mission, or more interesting, embitter them enough to turn them to evil. So many possible branching outcomes...

Now that I think about, how does one present a 'moral dilemma' to a Villain? One who, presumably, doesn't have any? "You can collect the ALL the loot from your elaborate heist, or take what you have now and humiliate your nemesis. Choose." Heh. I don't even know how to react.

HURRY UP AND RELEASE THIS THING ALREADY!! sorry. better now.

Nyxz wrote:

I do agree that for the truly retched villain a moral choice may be meaningless. However, those missions need to still have a meaningful choice for those redsiders that have concepts that haven't divested them of their humanity (or alienmutantrobottiness).

Sure there might be villains out there so bad that the idea of giving them a standard "moral" dilemma might not really apply. But even the most evil, non-empathetic people still have "desires" or "things that motivate them" that can be put into question.
Maybe choices for these villains could be presented like the following: You vow revenge against the old orphanage you grew up in. Do you work secretly to steal the tax money from the orphanage director's safe ensuring the kids are eventually tossed out on the street and ruining the lives of everyone involved or make sure your bomb blows up the orphanage ensuring you a huge amount of public infamy via swift fiery deaths? These kinds of choices wouldn't be classical moral dilemmas as much as ways to better define exactly what type of villain you want to be.

Lothic wrote:

Maybe choices for these villains could be presented like the following: You vow revenge against the old orphanage you grew up in. Do you work secretly to steal the tax money from the orphanage director's safe ensuring the kids are eventually tossed out on the street and ruining the lives of everyone involved or make sure your bomb blows up the orphanage ensuring you a huge amount of public infamy via swift fiery deaths? These kinds of choices wouldn't be classical moral dilemmas as much as ways to better define exactly what type of villain you want to be.

Hmmm.. sorta like "Life is Strange"???

One life for the many, or Many for the One. :P
The starting zone for the villain side has slightly different Lore since you chose to start off as a Villain.. and the town is devastated?

And this is possible because Hero World Instance is different from PvP World Instance... so I guess we can have a Villain World instance. Same city just Alternate realities... with Red'ish Skybox and more trash on the Streets and the like. A little like that Smallville episode where the Kandorians succeed in blocking out the yellow suns rays?

On the villain moral dilemma thing your assuming most villains would be in the business just to kick puppies, destroy orphanages, and kidnap kittens. Most villains aren't sadists and have their human sides to them. You could probably have a villain taking out a even worse villain that was known for doing rather atrocious things to the civvies. Villains like say Corpse Candle, Cumulus Rex, and there is bound to be a few others (perhaps The Tarot might count although from what seen so far they don't seem to needlessly kill civvies) that fit the monster villain role more.

Even with that said the true monsters can be anyone. Hero, Villain, Vigilante, or one of the Civvies. Villains can be anti-villains after all, heroic intentions just with bad methods to achieve them. You could have a villain take out government sponsored supergroups filled with corruption. Your villain might like taking out all of the surrounding gangs to get power yes but to make the city more safe on the street level in the process.

Let me throw a monkey wrench into this.

The entire notion of "villains don't have morals" is flawed from the start. It's fallacious thinking from the beginning.

City of Titans is going to work on a broader set of alignment axes than just "Good vs Evil" like City of Heroes did. We're going to have Law vs Anarchy. We're going to have Peace vs Violence. We're going to have Honor vs Untrustworthy. If you're wanting to create stories that revolve around the "moral/ethical dilemma" use one of THOSE dichotomies as the grounding for the decision handed to the Player. Do you follow the Law, or do you break it (because in this case it "needs breaking" in order to Do What Needs To Be Done)? Can you stomach a "peaceful solution" or do things Have To Be settled in a Might Makes Right kind of way? Will you Stay Bought or otherwise follow your own contractual obligations, even when they put you into conflict (or worse, catch you in a "forked check" sort of situation).

I'm reminded of the fact that in Paragon City and the Rogue Isles, everything revolved around the Good vs Evil axis ... but in Praetoria, that wasn't the divide in the stories. It wasn't about "being good" or somehow "being a villain" in Praetoria. Instead the stories revolved around ORDER vs ANARCHY, with the Loyalists standing for Public Order (no matter the cost) and the Resistance wanting to Overthrow That Order (no matter the cost). It wasn't about Good vs Evil in Praetoria ... white hats vs black hats ... but rather about Law vs Chaos, and to what extent your character was willing to go to in support of the Community rather than the Individual.

Best example I can give for that "moral choice" was the resolution of the [url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Calvin_Scott_(Praetorian)#Collapsing_Support]Calvin Scott[/url] arc where YOU get to decide which set of people are going to be killed by the Devouring Earth (so not a "pretty" death). Either way, people are going to end up dead, and it's your decision who gets "fed" to the Devouring Earth. There is no option to "save everyone" in how that story ends. Likewise, the way the [url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Cleopatra#Finale:_You_Know_Me]Cleopatra[/url] arc ends, where it comes down to a decision between killing either Cleopatra or Investigator Washington. Either way, someone is going to be left on the floor assuming room temperature, while the other walks away and gets to tell the(ir) story of how things went down. There's no option to be able to Save Both ... instead you have to CHOOSE ... who will live, and who will die.