你刚刷到这条消息，本来准备顺手划走，但又怕自己错过了真正会影响下一步判断的那一点。
最容易做错的，是Fable's judgement；代价往往是如果只盯表面热闹，你很容易在错误方向上花掉时间、预算和注意力。；我先给一个保守判断：在Fable里，善恶不在内心，在目击者手里。。
The easy mistake with Fable's judgement is to read it as another good-vs-evil meter. I don't think that frame holds. In Fable, good and evil are not inside the player. They sit in the hands of the people who saw what you did. That makes this less an inner morality system and more a public-opinion system.
The strongest clue is Ralph Fulton's description: do something often enough, or let enough people witness it, and a reputation forms in one town rather than everywhere at once.[S002] That is not universal karma. That is local memory.
The second clue is how NPC judgment appears to work. 演示（demo） coverage says nearly all of the game's 1,000 NPCs can react through their own traits and knowledge instead of one shared morality score.[S006] And in one example, one villager likes you for being wealthy while a merchant reads that same status negatively and raises prices by 80%.[S001] That is social reputation with consequences, not a simple halo-or-horns slider.
A good way to judge any update is not by how many features it lists, but by whether it changes your next decision. My read: stop calling this a morality system first and ask whether it is really a reputation network. Boundary line: this is based on pre-release 演示（demo） reporting and developer quotes, not hands-on play. If that distinction is useful, share it with the person who is still reading Fable as good vs. evil.
真正该讨论的是：Fable's judgement