Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous vs BG3

On the plus side, this does seem like something that could be fixed with a mod. Or, in game, the atonement spell.

The alignment system was always a mistake. Good thing 5e got rid of it.

This is something I agree with.

There's nothing wrong with an alignment system, it just doesn't mesh well when you gamify it.

I dislike it because it doesn't map on to the way real humans think, act, and feel.

I am aware that it works that way, which is why I asked, because I've managed to maintain the LG alignment for my paladin throughout the first game despite making a good chunk of the chaotic/neutral/evil choices. If the shifts are stronger in WotR or there are more unavoidable decisions where it's, say CG vs LE and you're a paladin, you are screwing yourself by making either one.

I am not against alignment as a system despite its shortcomings - I remember AD&D's interpretations of it, which were abysmally stupid, and it thankfully got better further on, when "true neutral" stopped being "an utter moron who'd maintain balance at all costs by crapping onto both sides of the scale until they even out" and simply became a person who does the "right" thing not based on morality or whether it's just or not, but because they feel like it is so.

Owlcat aren't really doing it too many favours, though, both based on Kingmaker and from what I've seen of WotR. That may have more to do with the setting rather than their writing quality (which is still bad), with the extremities such as the Hellknights (Lawful Stupid Evil) and the River Kingdoms (Chaotic Idiotic) existing there. I'll take my cliched and tropey but at least somewhat believable FR or something with a theme to it, like Krynn (R.I.P.) or Ravenloft over the bubbling boiling nonsense going on in Golarion on any day of the week, thank you.

It doesn't need to, because it's in a fictional fantasy world. It's part of the game system, and just like any other part of the game's system you learn how it works and then play within that system.

5e still have the alignment system. It was BG3 that did not implement it, along with reactions and several other features of the PnP.

No, 5th edition all but gutted the alignment system. Classes have no longer have alignment requirements. Aligned spell effects are no longer a thing. Et cetera. It is still there as a sort of decoration but it is no longer part of the game mechanics. BG3 did nothing but delivered the coup de grace by not including it as a flag in character creation. Which I don't think is a bad thing. Pathfinder games can be really limiting with their extreme aligned choices. Like, you can still fall from grace as a paladin if you are too good.

At the moment bg3 does not have an alignment system by direct request from WotC. I bet aligmnet doesn't have a very bright future in D&D. I wouldn't be surprised if the system was completely removed in 6e.

Yeah, the Pathfinder games definitely reminded me (yet again) that alignment systems (and not just D&D ones) suck.

I dont think the alignment system sucks, but i do think they could have adjusted some things. Why use the circle shape where good makes you move towards neutral? Just make it a flat square. Also, certain alignments shouldn't lock you out of abilities IF the origin of those abilities don't line up with the alignment required. My example again is a paladin of a NG Goddess, why do they need to stay LG?

I love the idea of betraying an ideal, and having to sacrificing something because of it, but just a universal "if you're not Lawful Good, you're not a paladin anymore", shows little imagination.

For sure, the idea of betraying an ideal is great, but not when it means just "you have lost too many points on X axis".

The right way to implement this would be to actually look at what each god(dess) stands for and make the character suffer for specific actions that go against that. But implementing an axis or two and just add or subtract numbers from two variables is lazy & lame, definitely something I dislike about both Pathfinder games. Planescape: Torment had a much better implementation of this, but I'm still not a fan.

My primary concern with PF: WotR is that it always judges alignment based on the ACTIONS rather than the REASONING.

I mean, a evil character could easily help people and then decline the NPCs rewards, seemingly out of good will - IF, the PC believes that they could win a leverage/influence over said NPCs for their own personal gains later. Or perhaps just to keep a facade to hide their true character. Meanwhile, a good character could easily make a pact with a devil - IF, they truly believe that in doing so they would gain the power to save someone / help someone. I also believe that a good character could kill a person that they know are innocent, IF they truly believe that the outcome out-weight the deed (i.e, kill the innocent child, save the village - but I would also believe this to be true in less extreme scenarios).

Respectively, a lawful aligned PC breaks a NPC out of prison because the organization the PC belongs to have demanded the NPC's release. The action in itself would definitely be chaotic by the standard of most games (... Because you're breaking the law) - however the REASONING behind it makes it lawful in my head as the character's action is driven by their dedication to their organization and the word from their superiors which I personally rule as lawful. Meanwhile, a chaotic character could most definitely be a law abiding citizen in general, and even be willingly arrested and take their punishment if they commit a crime - BUT, while the PC could logically understand that their actions are perceived as illegal and accept the punishment, they would still - at least in their head, but probably verbally - truthfully believe that the law itself is faulty, not their action. But perhaps the PC is scared they'll put people they care about in trouble if they try to run, or perhaps they have some form of grand masterplan that requires their arrest ('la "Law Abiding Citizen"-style <3 ).

This discussion has already been debated a lot here - and it is a huge problem in general with games not properly reading the PC's motivation and judging based solely on their actions. It is especially painful for the Evil characters (aka, go murder hobo every now and then or your alignment is gonna change).

And this is borderline unforgivable in a game where your alignment is CRUCIAL for your character! Because you force your players to choose: stay true to your decisions and change alignment - OR make a decision that is "wrong" for your character just to nudge them into the right alignment-direction.

Like don't get me wrong. I like the alignment system, but I don't think it works very well at all with a computer instead of a live DM.

It could be argued that BG3's alignment may not exist as a straightforward value but your character's actions still fall in line within the same old spectrum. Choosing how to deal with the tadpole conundrum could be seen as a lawful/chaotic conflict (resist it and maintain your mental integrity/give in to the powers it promises, for good or ill), whereas siding with the tieflings or the Absolute or whatever other paths there will be are the different shades of good/evil, depending, again, on the character's reasoning. Not having alignment constantly shoved in your face while still maintaining a presense in the background is probably the best of both worlds? Planescape: Torment was subtle enough about it back in the day.

Still, 5e's decision to make alignment barely matter is an... odd one. Unlawful monks and lawful barbarians sure are a twist (as is being able to multiclass these polar opposites). Not sure what to expect out of 6e in that regard. How did Pathfinder's second edition handle it? I am only familiar with the first one.

I still don't understand the love for PF. Can't even get through Kingmaker.

BG3 may have it's faults, but it's way more fun. PF is frustrating as heck at times unless you really dumb down difficulty. I like playing D&D with normal rules. Don't give me a D&D game where I am constantly dying I'd I use normal ruleset. Gear the game for normal rules and then make it easier for noobs and harder for those who are crazy good. Don't make it so I'm struggling and have to constantly reload or "get good" just to play with normal rules.

That's not good DMing. I would never throw monsters at players that nearly kill them every fight. Wander into a wolf den and fight wolves that can hit someone with AC 25 by rolling an 8 or higher? Come on! Wolves? Knock you down and you try to get up and the whole pack kills you, with AC 25. Nuh uh. That's not fun.

I still say: BG3 is best, then Solasta, then Pathfinder.

Amen.

What about Skyrim?

I prefer Morrowind, myself.

I would definitely say that Larian is a better DM than Owlcat. For me at least, BG3's Faerun is a more breathing and living world than Owlcat's Golarion. BG3 is a much more vivid and immersed experience, while Pathfinder just fails to scratch that rpg itch for me. I cannot lose myself in their story the way I can with BG3.