Originally Posted by Hawke
The reputation system in Baldurs Gate was horrible, probably the worst mechanic in the game. It was nearly impossible to play a non-good character and evil companions like Viconia left you when you rep was 18 or higher, which meant I had to cheat constantly to keep her in my party.
The worst part was that your alignment wouldn't change even if you went on a killing spree.
BG3 needs an alignment system like NWW or Pathfinder where your choice affects your character's alignment.

Originally Posted by kanisatha
I find it problematic to have an equivalence between the "good" side and the "bad" or "evil" side. In any world/setting and in any society, you are not going to find such an equivalence. So from a story-writing and world-building standpoint, having good and evil being equivalent is not going to work. Either the good side should be preferred, or the evil side should be preferred (like in Tyranny). Trying to have it both ways will result in nothing mattering in the world.


That's not possible in Baldurs Gate 3 because Good and Evil are very real powers in the world of the forgotten realms.

Yes good and evil both exist as real things in the FR, but unless you are in a few specific locales (Thay, Zentil Keep, etc.), in most of the setting the people of the area are of good or neutral alignment and not evil. So obviously you the PC will have a much easier and more productive experience if you are also good/neutral rather than if you are evil. Hence my observation of there not being an equivalence between the two. Good/neutral PCs are by definition going to have an advantage versus evil aligned PCs. But the reverse will be true if you were playing in Thay, for example.