|
|
|
veteran
|
OP
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
|
I had to check I’d not opened the evil path thread by mistake!
Though I think that this one has got side-tracked into talking about the specific moralit(ies) of that option brings to life nicely the challenges and possible frustrations of a “dynamic†option that took Larian’s weightings of how chaotic or evil (or otherwise) an action was and played it back to us. Eh. I wouldn't say sidetracked. The thread is about how NOT black and white alignment can be. A dialogue decision may SEEM to be evil, but it depends on how YOU see it. Just like Larian's relationship approval system. People disapprove of my drow battlemaster setting Sazza free, but I never get to explain my motive. I'm not joining them or helping out a goblin, Wyll. I'm attempting to use Sazza to make getting close to the bosses easier. He should approve of my plan if I was able to explain my motive. Likewise, alignment shifting shouldn't be based on what Larian assumes is our intentions in any given situation. That's my point against the Dynamic option where the game decides and shifts my alignment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
The thread is about how NOT black and white alignment can be. A dialogue decision may SEEM to be evil, but it depends on how YOU see it. I do agree alignment is not black and white, and that there is no system, no matter how far it lets you could detail your intentions, that could uncontroversially automatically shift your alignment in every case. Even with exactly the same understanding of intentions, two people could reasonably make different assessments of exactly how evil or chaotic an act was. I still would prefer an automatic assessment to one I had to intervene in, I think, though I do see pros and cons, and I definitely still prefer no alignment except in my head to either. EDIT: I’ve slept on this and changed my mind on an automatic dynamic alignment. While I do think it might be quite fun, if occasionally frustrating, to have the game play back to me how it judged my actions were shifting my alignment, the opportunity cost of doing this well would just be too great, given I’d much prefer Larian to spend their time and effort making the world responsive to specific things I do, and giving me richer opportunities to roleplay my intentions and motivations. If we had to have an alignment shown in the game, I’d go for selecting one at character creation, with perhaps an opportunity to self-reassess at the beginning of each act or a very small number of other key points. Just like Larian's relationship approval system. People disapprove of my drow battlemaster setting Sazza free, but I never get to explain my motive. 100% agree with this, and that the game should be much better at letting me make my motives explicit, both for companion approval and also just for the satisfaction of getting some recognition of my roleplay.
Last edited by The_Red_Queen; 31/08/22 02:43 PM.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
|
None is the best option for me, but if we must have alignment then dynamic (either version) is tolerable. Static would just be ridiculous to me, if I start as lawful good and run around murder hoboing the world then I should absolutely not be considered lawful good anymore. You deciding your own alignment could work for more mature players, but I can see some people randomly changing because they feel like it and then complaining that they were allowed to do it. None gives the best freedom for character development without being coloured by someone else's interpretations of alignment. We can pick one at the start for character flavour but that is all that is necessary. This topic came up because I was playing Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous. I created a Lawful Good Paladin of Iomedae before I even realized that the entire game was about Iomedae. lol. My personal beliefs align more with Lawful Good - or so I thought. As I was playing the game, my alignment suddenly shifted to Neutral Good, and my paladin lost his ability to use his powers. This did NOT sit well with me at all In the Pathfinder system, alignment can present an issue for clerics and paladins because they have to be no more than one step from their deity's alignment. The dialogue options are not always the best for people in the video games, some are absolutely stupid. If you want to play a religious class in that system then it probably would work better with a real DM where you can explain the reasons behind your actions. Otherwise you are stuck with the arbitrary alignment interpretations that someone decided to put in the game. This does not sit well with me because of my beliefs. What also doesn't sit well with me is that Lawful Good is about obeying law regardless of whether the law is really good or not. Whether the law is serving people or not, a Lawful Good character must obey the law or they might slide towards a new alignment This is the viewpoint I have basically had shoved at me about lawful good in practically every morality and alignment conversation I have ever had, so I find it really common. Lawful good is apparently for fanatics and people who love any excuse to be rigid and controlling (and you can't tell these people they are acting more like lawful evil.) Neutral good is much more benevolent and willing to listen to reason. Not really qualified to get into the part about your beliefs because I do not worship your deity (and have had interactions with followers of said deity which could be considered evil aligned on their part) but I will say that it is often hard to roleplay yourself in a fictional setting where the interactions and dialogues assume you to be a part of the fictional world instead. So, you can't just shift alignments on people because my action may SEEM like it is Evil in BG3, but it may actually just be smart. I'm SAYING I'm joining Minthara when I'm really pretending to join her to lure her into a more advantageous position for myself. Instead of 4 party members fighting Minthara in her home court, I'm luring her to a well-defendable gate with allies like Zevlor to help me wipe out her forces. So how is Larian going to judge my action of "Yes, Minthara, I'm going to help you"? Are they going to call that evil? Another good example of why None is better, especially without a real DM to explain your reasoning to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I did like the Karma in the original BG games. Are you talking about reputation there, or some other system that I don’t recall? Yes, reputation not karma (ugg). Thanks for the correction. I had to head cannon it as karma, because it had the metaphysical ability to change when no one was around when you became the slayer,etc… One can have a neutral/good alignment but have a bad karma/reputation simply because of bad choices. For example, using absolute powers to force goblins into submission but ultimately siding with tieflings. The tieflings may celebrate you but can “feel†something is off about you, like the three fishers digging up the mindflayer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
I did like the Karma in the original BG games. Are you talking about reputation there, or some other system that I don’t recall? Yes, reputation not karma (ugg). Thanks for the correction. I had to head cannon it as karma, because it had the metaphysical ability to change when no one was around when you became the slayer,etc… You put your finger on one of the main things I didn’t like about reputation, in that it was a mess of things that could be publicly known along with stuff I did that no one could reasonably know, but then affected how people interacted with me. I suppose you can head-canon it as karma, but it’s still not a perfect fit and I’m not sure how that aligns with D&D lore. If Larian do have something along those lines, and I agree they should, I hope they’ll be really clear about what it is and make it make sense within the game context. I have been assuming they’ll do something more with the attitude scores that NPCs have. I haven’t really paid much attention to it so am not sure whether attitude can already change in response to things I do (other than crime), though I noticed for example that Aaron the trader is better disposed to me if I’m a druid. To me, attitude currently gives the impression of being a bit scrappy and underdeveloped, but I think it has the potential to become a more sophisticated counterpart of reputation in the first games.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
This does not sit well with me because of my beliefs. What also doesn't sit well with me is that Lawful Good is about obeying law regardless of whether the law is really good or not. Whether the law is serving people or not, a Lawful Good character must obey the law or they might slide towards a new alignment This is the viewpoint I have basically had shoved at me about lawful good in practically every morality and alignment conversation I have ever had, so I find it really common. Lawful good is apparently for fanatics and people who love any excuse to be rigid and controlling (and you can't tell these people they are acting more like lawful evil.) Neutral good is much more benevolent and willing to listen to reason. Imo, what you are describing--following the laws above all else--would be Lawful Neutral, not Lawful Good. If anything, Lawful Good characters can offer more choice in roleplaying than either LN or NG. LN characters will follow the law/their code. Good characters will do what they think will help others most. LG characters, however, when faced with a situation where the law calls for something and (their idea of) doing good calls for another action...have to make a choice. LG characters might follow harmful laws if they think that doing so is important for society's well-being, but will (should) have a breaking point where they'll stand against unjust laws. But yeah, an unfortunately commonly held idea about LG characters is that they're goody-two-shoes who, in every situation, must follow the law AND must do good, in that order. There's also the confusion about specific laws...just because a character is Lawful (has a code, values authority, values order) doesn't mean they will follow every law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
This is the viewpoint I have basically had shoved at me about lawful good in practically every morality and alignment conversation I have ever had, so I find it really common. Lawful good is apparently for fanatics and people who love any excuse to be rigid and controlling (and you can't tell these people they are acting more like lawful evil.) Neutral good is much more benevolent and willing to listen to reason. As they say, the law is harsh but it is the law! It’s not my bag, personally, but I think it makes perfect sense that the good alignment spectrum makes space for a view that sees order of so much importance to producing good in general, that rules should be adhered to even when they lead to undesirable consequences in some specific cases (EDIT: within limits, as I’ve just seen mrfuji3’s post convincingly arguing). Though I am with you in not thinking alignment should have any mechanical significance within the game.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Mar 2022
|
I think the alignement chart is a remnant from a simpler time DnD was just a bunch of adventurers mindlessly dungeon crawling to slay the evil dragon. Stories were less about roaming a complex moral area and more copying what other medias of the time offered. Nowadays it makes more sense for it to be descriptive rather than prescritive since modern stories have become way more convoluted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Aug 2022
|
I don't like alignment because its an oversimplification of human (or sapient) behavior. +1 In my opinion, alignements can be an interesting tool when use as a general guidelines. To give an idea of a character's tendencies. However, if implemented in a video game, this could turn "general guidelines" to rules and it could prove way more restrictive than helpful. I like to have characters that (like real life people) are more complex than "I'm this alignement" or "I'm this alignement and maybe one day it would be another one". When doing "alignement test" multiple times (on different days or websites), I know that people (including me) don't always have the same results and don't necessarily have "black and white" or "100% you're this" results. I like to have characters that work the same way. Something to note, often we all don't even agree with the definition of the different alignements or disagree on their interpretation (this thread alone contains proof of that). Making it extra difficult to implement, especially in a way that's satisfying to most. Like others here, I like the idea of actions having consequences more than an alignement system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I think Alignment is very useful, especially in a cRPG where character actions or dialog responses are necessarily presented within a fairly narrow range. In that case at least it gives the writers a sense for how many types of responses should be on offer or what they should be trying to account for as a baseline for variety there. For me the alignment system in D&D/FR is more about the cosmology of the setting and where characters go when they die, rather than a rigid code of conduct or philosophy on life though. Shifting alignments can be a bit heavy handed, unless the DM is really on top of things.
I think when players find the system unsatisfactory in cRPG, the issue has a bit more to do with the fact that what they're being given in terms of dialog responses just isn't variable enough. I think what is needed is maybe something more like an Affect system, rather than an Alignment system, or at least some way to translate how the one fits into the other.
I feel like most RPGs tend to offer a few generic responses to a given situation/convo prompt that can usually be described as one of the of following...
Kind
Cruel
Indifferent
Sardonic
Then there is often some version of Honest vs Dishonest or Dissembling (whether to tell the truth, lie, or go with something in the middle, like changing the subject or returning the question with another question etc.)
Also, there might be a final response option that is class/background/race specific, which probably overrides all the above in the case of BG3, since there is usually only one option for that and it frequently displays last. The player is strongly encouraged by the meta to explore those convo options which seem especially unique to their Character, or which might give access to information that wouldn't be accessible otherwise. How any of that grafts onto abstract ideas like Good vs Evil or Law vs Chaos is probably anyone's guess though, since how the player is responding compared to how they're rationalizing those responses is pretty murky territory, and the DM is a computer here.
I guess the long and the short of it for me, is that they should use Alignment to help support the cosmology and the pantheon, and less for controlling the player's ethos or sense of general D&D morality. The problem with the later, just like in the real world, is that players can't prognosticate in advance what the ultimate consequences of their actions will be. A seemingly Lawful response, might result in total Chaos down the line, or a seemingly Good action might result in Evil ends, without the player really understanding why. So it's stuck only at intentionality.
Even a simple ethical model like utility, with the greatest good for the greatest number, can easily fail if you just stretch the timeline a bit and spin out the consequences for long enough. It only ever works with the qualifying caveat "right now" hehe. And of course there's not a lot of room for fatalism or deterministic thinking here either, in a game where the Will is so etched into everything at the foundations. I think it would be refreshing to see a Chaotic character who refuses to accept responsibility for their choices because 'the universe is random, and didn't you know?' or a Lawful character who refuses to accept responsibility because 'the gears were already in motion, long before I got here'. I guess Xan gave us a pessimistic take on the later, but that's still pretty rare in these game. Chaotic Neutral was always the trickiest, and the manuals were really at pains to describe it as anything other than 'kinda crazy' which left a bit to be desired.
Anyhow, I think they should describe Alignment in terms of the deities, and use them as examples rather using descriptions like we found in older editions. You know stuff like LN = "The solider who always follows orders" or CN = "the madman" or CG = "basically, Robin Hood" etc.
I agree with the OP though, that when you don't have anything to go off of, how a character should respond based on their character, becomes kind of capricious and all over the place. My dialog responses here, are pretty inconsistent and often made on a whim. Whereas when I choose an Alignment as part of Char creation I tend to play to type a bit more.
Last edited by Black_Elk; 31/08/22 07:24 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2021
|
I think your choices should have some consequences.
E. g. if you decided to play a paladin with Oath of Devotion then you're expected to be honest, courageous, compassionate, honorable and dutiful. So if you deviate too much from such behavior you should temporarily lose you oath abilities until you atone. Or if you voluntarily do this you have to pick another subclass like the Oathbreaker.
Interaction with NPC's and companions should also be affected by your actions. The general alignment system is too simplified. So it would be better to have a list of personal traits and then get a score in each based upon your actions during the game. That is how others see you and they will respond accordingly. If you have a reputation for being cruel then some NPC's in a tavern will be sceptical while others might see you as a possible asset (like criminals).
Interaction between companions should also be affected by your actions and some might become suspicious and even hostile towards you. E. g. it would not be likely that a paladin companion would accept staying in a party breaking into houses to rob people.
So no mechanisms controlling character interactions is not good in my opinion. The ideal situation would be for you to pick traits at the character creation that's important for you. That means you will try to play accordingly. If you fail to do so then you might shift. E. g. if you selected compassionate as a trait and you keep killing innocent people you might shift towards cruel instead.
I don't think we will see any of this in BG3 because the game is too far along for Larian to add such mechanisms beside what they already have. There seems to be some kind of companion interaction system so they respond to your choices. Maybe that's enough for BG 3?
So my #1 option would be dynamic (but not based upon just the 4 alignment vectors).. #2 option would be none (since it's unlikely Larian can introduce new ways to interact).
Last edited by Stauffenberg; 31/08/22 10:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
I think your choices should have some consequences.
E. g. if you decided to play a paladin with Oath of Devotion then you're expected to be honest, courageous, compassionate, honorable and dutiful. So if you deviate too much from such behavior you should temporarily lose you oath abilities until you atone. Or if you voluntarily do this you have to pick another subclass like the Oathbreaker. Agreed, I hope we’ll get something like this. Interaction with NPC's and companions should also be affected by your actions. The general alignment system is too simplified. So it would be better to have a list of personal traits and then get a score in each based upon your actions during the game. That is how others see you and they will respond accordingly. If you have a reputation for being cruel then some NPC's in a tavern will be sceptical while others might see you as a possible asset (like criminals). I know some games, like PoE, do have that sort of trait score approach and I sort of like it, but would still prefer a means of NPCs responding to what you do that is unmediated by scores in that way, i.e. each NPC would have a potential attitude adjustment (and possibly specific dialogue if they’d care enough to mention it) for significant things you might do in the game that they might reasonably know about. NPCs in particular factions might have broadly similar reactions to simplify this, but there would still be room for individual differences where that had story implications. I know this might sound fiddly, but I don’t think it would be that bad as the vast majority of what you do would impact few if any NPCs, as even if if they had heard about the events in question they wouldn’t necessarily know you were the one involved unless you or someone they know tells them. I would rather have a smaller number of NPCs respond in specific ways to things I’ve done that affect their friends, faction or allies than everyone in the world responding in generic ways to scores (or alignment) I’ve earned largely by doing things it would be a stretch to imagine they’d ever hear about. Interaction between companions should also be affected by your actions and some might become suspicious and even hostile towards you. E. g. it would not be likely that a paladin companion would accept staying in a party breaking into houses to rob people. Agreed again. We already see some of this with companion approval plus dealbreaker events (or possible dealbreaker events that we can persuade them out of) in some cases. I’m looking forward to this being further developed. I don't think we will see any of this in BG3 because the game is too far along for Larian to add such mechanisms beside what they already have. I think the mechanisms that would allow Larian to do what I’d like, at least, are already in place though would need some development. There’s companion approval and NPC attitude, plus responsiveness of the world to character tags. I don’t know whether the game already attaches tags like “Saviour of the Grove†or “Butcher of the Grove†to your character when you take certain options, but it feels as though it could and then have relevant NPCs with specific dialogue or actions for characters with those tags. I can’t imagine it would be hard to have some tags, like Deceptive or Cruel to be earned by showing certain behaviours a number of times. Though I still have my reservations about having NPCs respond to traits rather than specific events, it’s one possible way Larian may track adherence of Paladins to their oaths.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
|
[quote=avahZ Darkwood][quote=The_Red_Queen][quote=avahZ Darkwood]
I have been assuming they’ll do something more with the attitude scores that NPCs have. I haven’t really paid much attention to it so am not sure whether attitude can already change in response to things I do (other than crime), though I noticed for example that Aaron the trader is better disposed to me if I’m a druid. To me, attitude currently gives the impression of being a bit scrappy and underdeveloped, but I think it has the potential to become a more sophisticated counterpart of reputation in the first games. you can raise their attitude by bartering them item and giving them a good deal (ie free or unbalanced trade in their favor). You can get an inspiration point (for one of the origins) for maxing a merchant out and I think buying something from them afterwards. The more they like you the cheaper your goods are. You can currently raise (i think) everyone's attitude level this way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
|
|
Volunteer Moderator
Joined: Feb 2022
|
[quote=avahZ Darkwood][quote=The_Red_Queen][quote=avahZ Darkwood]
I have been assuming they’ll do something more with the attitude scores that NPCs have. I haven’t really paid much attention to it so am not sure whether attitude can already change in response to things I do (other than crime), though I noticed for example that Aaron the trader is better disposed to me if I’m a druid. To me, attitude currently gives the impression of being a bit scrappy and underdeveloped, but I think it has the potential to become a more sophisticated counterpart of reputation in the first games. you can raise their attitude by bartering them item and giving them a good deal (ie free or unbalanced trade in their favor). You can get an inspiration point (for one of the origins) for maxing a merchant out and I think buying something from them afterwards. The more they like you the cheaper your goods are. You can currently raise (i think) everyone's attitude level this way. Oh yes, true. That’s something I’ve not played around with much because it seems a bit cheesy and fake. From other threads, it sounds like buying attitude improvements is way too cheap. I don’t wholly reject the idea in principle (and it has a precedent in buying reputation at temples in the first games), but I think I would prefer purchasing attitude improvements to get progressively more expensive, rapidly so once past neutral. Not that any such change is necessary in order to further develop attitude as a way to reflect NPCs views on how you’ve behaved.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2015
|
I voted: First choice: none, second choice: dynamic
I like how the witcher games did it. Show us no alignment, show us only the consequences of our action and let the player decide if they consider it good, bad or just the lesser evil. The world is complex and it is often difficult to put an action clearly into one category such as good, evil, lawful, chaotic. In games with alignment there were often moments where I was thinking "Why is this considered chaotic?"In WotR the lawful (NOT evil) answer in a quest of the angel mystic path was "Torture the prisoners. We need all information we can get." At some point the answer "I do this because I want to stay alive." was considered chaotic.
If the game gets alignment I want it to be dynamic, so you can change your alignment with your actions.
@OP and the first post (sorry, I did not read everything below)
The problem with Kingmaker and WotR is that the alignment is circular, not square. Selecting good options move you up, but neutral good goes more up than lawful good, so selecting good options move you towards neutral good. The solution would be a square alignment screen. Selecting good would move you only up, NOT left/ right at all. same for all other directions. Right now a paladin has to use lawful options and good options to stay lawful good. Good options move you to neutral good and lawful options to lawful neutral. This is bad.
About your philosophic problem:
- You could argue that god is lawful good, but in case of conflict he is more good than lawful. So he created the laws and cares if people follow the law but its OK if you break a law for the greater good, depending on the situation.
- Or you can argue that god is neutral good and he created the laws. There is no rule that forbids neutral good characters to create laws. They are just more likely to ignore the law if something good can be achieved otherwise.
 Prof. Dr. Dr. Mad S. Tist World leading expert of artificial stupidity. Because there are too many people who work on artificial intelligence already 
|
|
|
|
|
|
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Jan 2023
|
I am torn between None and "You decide". Both options respect both the world's opinion on you and your own self evaluation/perception.
- You acted poorly according to someone's beliefs - you get a reaction from some part of the world.
Allignment generally exists in DnD to help you navigate your character, this is very useful to newer players, because otherwise the game can turn chaotic very quickly (my first DnD session LOL). I see it as a starting point which can then change at turning points in the story.
While your None option leaves things as is, the "You decide" should probably mean some gameplay changes as well. I'd be happy to read about your vision of how this could be implemented. As I mentioned, the "You Decide" path would be somewhat difficult to implement. I left it vague on purpose so that I didn't lock it down with just one concept. However, I was thinking something along the lines of: Character Creation. The game has detailed explanations of what each Alignment means and explains that Alignment is useful because certain items and spells are attuned to different alignments. Example: if you are Lawful Good, you could use the sword of a good angel, but if you are Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil or Chaotic Evil, just touching the sword could hurt you depending on the sword's characteristics. At the very least, you wouldn't be able to use it. A good deity wouldn't allow their weapons to be used by evil creatures and vice versa. Besides this, Alignment helps you roleplay your character. Try to make decisions that you think your character would make based on your chosen Alignment, or if you are between two choices in the game, choose the one that fits the Alignment best." So, at Character Creation, Larian kind of guides players through the choosing of Alignment and explains why Alignment is important both mechanically and from a roleplaying perspective. Then, at various times, an indicator flashes, letting you know that you have just performed an action that unlocks alignment. You can change alignment at that point if you'd like. This would be after you choose to do something that Larian believes could have a significant impact on alignment. Also, the first time it happens, a Tool Tip pops up explaining the mechanic in detail. For example. You are a Lawful Good character and you see Shadowheart lying on the beach unconscious. You decide to kill her before she wakes up. You believe she is an evil cleric of Shar. After all, she's wearing all the armor and equipment of a Dark Justiciar. In your mind, it is best to kill her before she kills or tortures or kidnaps others. After killing her, the popup Tool Tip says, "You have just performed an action that could shift your alignment. Whenever you perform such an action, this indicator will flash, letting you know that you could change your alignment if you want to. You decide if your decision warrants a shift in alignment. Based on the action you performed, it would typically be considered an Evil action. However, you may have done it for good reasons. Therefore, it is your call to determine whether the action truly is Evil or Good. Was your action more Lawful or Chaotic... or perhaps it was neither and should be considered a Neutral action. You decide. The indicator will flash until you either click on it and cancel it, click on it and choose a new Aligment, or until you engage in a new dialogue or combat." Another example would be: You are True Neutral and you decide to join Minthara. You say you're going to wipe out the grove, and she leaves to make preparations. The indicator flashes. You choose to cancel it because you are True Neutral, and you are actually tricking her. You have absolutely no intention of wiping out the grove. You're going to lure her into a conflict with the tieflings and druids so that you aren't facing an army of goblins by yourself. You also don't have to kill Minthara by yourself. You now only have to focus on Gut and Ragzlin. Smart move, True Neutral character. Ah, but what if you weren't sure whether you were going to join Minthara yet or not? You still cancel it, but then after you reach the wall you decide to join Minthara. Another indicator flashes after you kill the tieflings on the wall and let Minthara in. You open up the popup and choose to shift your alignment to Neutral Evil because you have decided to join the Absolute and you want to benefit completely from being evil (or maybe even Chaotic or Lawful Evil - whatever you want). You have a pretty good idea if you join the Absolute, you're going to start getting a lot of evil aligned gear, and by shifting to that alignment, you will be able to use said really nice evil gear. Hmmm. Now that I'm spelling it out, this could be the best way to go. Dang it! This leaves a lot of room for players to adapt their characters during the game so that they can change their alignment and not be stuck with it for the duration of the game. Or maybe instead of what I've outlined above, it could be that every time you level up you can also shift your alignment. That could work too. It might not be as story driven, but it still allows for flexibility - that is, until you reach higher levels and don't level up as much. Just thoughts, though. I'm not saying this option would HAVE to be like this. now this! this i absolutely would love to have in bg3 if it were done in a similar way to this. i would 100% be happy with this. at least it would make my playthroughs more unique and different and give a tangible reason as to either join or not join someone. or a reason as to kill or not kill. or save or not save etc etc,
has thoust forgot thy treefather & nature, or does thoust abandon the treefather for power and gain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Mar 2020
|
Thanks for posting the poll and kickstarting this discussion.
I am also a supporter of a dynamic -- but definitely not player controlled -- alignment system. While imperfect, in AD&D it was useful to help ensure players played their PCs in a manner "true" to their characters and if not, there were consequences.
Agree that the implementation in this setting (e.g., WOTR) is harder to get right.
The greatest of evils we face may lie within
|
|
|
|
|
