@Tyr2000
And now we come to the old philosophic argument between deontologists and consequentalists:
Are the intentions or the consequences more importent when you decide what is good and evil?
People discuss this since over 2000 years, so we will not find a final answer here.
Regarding this game:
The GM ( or developer in case of a computer game) has the final word what is considered good or evil in this setting.
Some players will always disagree with this.
The best thing the devs can do is to design it in a way that most players find it at least OK (if not perfect) while making sure the others do not rage quit.
This exactly. I'm not going to try to debate on real world good and evil, much more intelligent people than myself have attempted and continue to attempt to do so. The fact it has been continued to be debated throught human history leads me to personally believe it is completely subjective and there is no such thing as universal "good and evil" and it's really just what's "good and bad" for a particular person or group of people. Remember that a not small portion of society considered the very game we are talking about to be a direct link to Satanism, their
absolute evil.
Buuuuut in a
fantasy world good and evil can be quantifiable forces. This can allow us explore these ideas in a new way, dramatize them to make an emotionally ingaging story and implement a ruleset around them. The creative talant at WoTC and Larian are the ultimate arbiters of what constitutes good and evil in BG3 and I'm not trying to suggest what they should consider each to be, rather to brainstorm about how it could implemented
as a game.
I guess my arguing for the alignment axis to be in the game is the same reason the d&d ruleset exists in the first place, to add structure to storytelling and make a game out of it. I don't view alignment, structurally, as much different than hit points. If you can add a shield with damage resistance to mitigate hit point loss then why not use an "intent" to mitigate alignment shifts?
I'm not saying this is realistic but if we are quantifying other abstract concepts such as how much damage it takes to die, how much armor protects you, how much people like you, why not do it with alignment/morality as well?
