Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Alignment - None/Static/Dynamic

OK. Let's PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE try to keep this civil. Please select your option, state your beliefs and opinions, and PLEASE don't attack anyone's beliefs or opinions.

The options:

1. None - This means that you like BG3 as it is presently. It has no alignment at all, and you are happy with that. You really don't want there to be any alignment in the game at all.

2. Static - This means that you want Larian to add alignment into the game, but you want it to remain unchanging throughout the game. A good example of this is Solasta. You choose to be Lawful Good and regardless of your actions you remain Lawful Good. Your alignment never changes no matter what actions you take.

3. Dynamic - This means that you want Larian to add alignment into the game, and you want it to change depending on your actions and decisions in the game. A good example of this is Pathfinder and/or the original BG games. You choose to be Lawful Good, but if you start making too many Chaotic or Evil choices your character shifts towards new alignments.

4. Dynamic (You Decide) - This is the same as Dynamic except that the game doesn't shift your alignment. YOU can choose to shift your alignment at certain points. There would need to be some sort of limitations to this, of course, but the idea is that the game clearly defines when you will have the ability to shift alignments. So, if you start as Lawful Good and decide to legit join the Absolute, you could have an alignment shift at that point from Lawful Good to Chaotic Evil or Lawful Evil or whatever. This might be difficult to implement, but the point of this option would be to have some way for you, the player, to be the one to pass judgment on your own character's actions so that if you decide to shift alignment, you could. However, it would need to be restrictive enough so that you couldn't just constantly shift alignments whenever it suits you.

I made it so that you can choose your primary preference (only 1 option), a secondary preference (only 1 option) and a third preference (only 1 option). In this way, you can let Larian know what you'd really prefer, what you'd like to have if they can't do that or don't want to do that, and what you'd settle for if nothing else.

My beliefs and opinions on the subject (the reason for this post and something to make you think):

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. I had been selecting Good and Lawful options for dialogues, but mostly Good. So the game passed judgment on what I believe is Good and Lawful, and it basically decided that I was not Lawful. Then I HAD to choose Lawful options in order to get my alignment back to Lawful Good to regain my powers - and I didn't really agree with the Lawful options I had to choose from.

I believe that God's Law is Good and Right. He established and defined what IS Good and Evil. If everyone obeyed His Law, everyone would live in peace and harmony. It is because people disobey His Law that chaos and disunity and war occur. This is what the Bible teaches. It also teaches that God respects Man's Law except when Man's Law is not good. When Men (meaning the race of Adam, for his name literally means "Man" and not referring to gender here) create laws that are not good, God does not respect those laws and teaches that you should not obey them. An example of this was Pharaoh ordering the murder of the baby boys of Israel, demanding that they all die. God rewarded and blessed the midwives for breaking the Law of Pharaoh because it was evil.

This is because the Bible teaches that the Law was made to serve people and not people made to serve the Law. So, Jesus Himself gave examples of how individuals in the Bible even broke God's Law because they needed to in order to accomplish the greater good. God Himself knows that there are Changing Laws and Unchanging Laws. Unchanging Laws are those that are universal. "Love your neighbors as yourself," is a universal, Unchanging Law. God will NEVER want a person to not love their neighbors. He wants people to love and respect one another always. A Changing Law is one that He created that He knows doesn't necessarily fit every situation. An example of this would be, "Do no work on the Sabbath." Jesus Himself said, "If a person (or animal) fell into a pit on the Sabbath day, wouldn't you help them even though it is work? Of course you would, because it is good to help someone in need. The Sabbath Law, therefore, would not apply in that circumstance because what is Good supercedes what is Lawful." Another example was David went into the Temple of the Lord, which was unlawful for him to do, in order to survive. He also ate bread from within the temple, which was also against the Law. According to the Law, he should have been stricken dead, but God excused his behavior because at that point obeying the Law was not going to accomlish the greater good. David was more important to God than the Law.

So what shall we say? Is God Neutral Good? The one who created the Law actually isn't Lawful Good but Neutral Good? Are we to then say that Lawful Good ISN'T the epitome of all good?

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 - at least that's how it was for me in Pathfinder (how Owlcat translated Lawful Good).

Basically, what I'm saying is, I don't like that Pathfinder and games like it judge my actions as to whether the devs think something is Lawful Good or not. I actually would prefer BG3's current non-alignment system than to have someone who doesn't believe what I believe judging my actions and having me shift alignments because I'm not playing the way THEY think I should play based on my alignment.

Therefore, what I'm saying is that I'd prefer a Static system like Solasta's where I choose my alignment and it doesn't shift. If I get items that have a Lawful Good prerequisite, then I know I can give them to my Lawful Good Paladin because he isn't going to suddenly have an alignment shift. I also know that because of alignment, not everyone can use said item, which I think is cool. The evil sword of a demon lord should not be usable by my Lawful Good Paladin while my Paladin's Angel Sword shouldn't be usable by someone like Lae'zel. My least preference is the Dynamic system where I can start as a Lawful Good Paladin and have the game force me to shift to something else.

I might like a Dynamic (You Decide) system if it is done well, because then I could create a scenario where I might start good but choose to fall into temptation and join the Absolute. My problem with it is that I highly doubt it could be done in a way that I would approve. This is why I have chosen the Static option. It's easier to implement and there is less of a chance that I will be unhappy with it.

So, I know that was long, but I wanted to give people things to think about BEFORE they make a choice. I mean REALLY think about it. Will you be in the same boat as me if Larian develops a Dynamic Alignment system? Will you enjoy such a system that passes judgment and shifts your alignment based on what Larian thinks is Good or Lawful or whatever? Would you trust Larian to create a Dynamic (You Decide) system? Will they provide the right opportunities to shift your alignment as you see fit at the right times? Would you rather not have any alilgnment at all and just be done with such things?

Please feel free to share your beliefs and opinions, but again, PLEASE refrain from attacking other people's beliefs and opinions. I'd rather have the mods shut this post down right away then have people attacking one another's beliefs and opinions. However, this post is important to me, and I'd like to see it remain open to get people's true opinions on the matter. This post is 100% about what you believe and your opinion. There is literally no right or wrong answer or need for debating someone's personal thoughts and feelings on this. Please state your own opinions and beliefs without arguing with others about there's.

Thanks.

Alignment - First Choice single choice
	None
	Static
	Dynamic
	Dynamic (You Decide)
Votes accepted starting: 30/08/22 03:02 PM
View Results

Alignment - Second Choice single choice
	None
	Static
	Dynamic
	Dynamic (You Decide)
Votes accepted starting: 30/08/22 03:03 PM
View Results

Alignment - Third Choice single choice
	None
	Static
	Dynamic
	Dynamic (You Decide)
Votes accepted starting: 30/08/22 03:03 PM
View Results

I overall like how WotR handles alignment, but I will agree that when it comes to lawful in particular, it doesn't do very well. It's better than their first game, but still stumbles. There's a point where the lawful option is actually telling a cleric to betray their order's teachings, which is insane to me. A lot of the lawful choices in the game do feel a lot more lawful evil. I will say though that your vision of lawful good doesn't map perfectly to what the setting's idea of lawful good in general is. Since there are a lot of gods, and several of them are explicitly neutral, chaotic or even evil, so obeying them wouldn't be the lawful good action. Being lawful tends to be (or at least, should be) more about maintaining order in general, standing by tradition and discipline, obeying laws, etc. But really, other than the part about specifically obeying God, your idea of lawful goodis pretty much what lawful good SHOULD be in the setting. At one point you meet someone who expresses more or less that viewpoint. His specific phrasing was "good is the greatest order and order is the greatest good."

Onto alignment in BG3 though, I don't want Larian to introduce alignment because I don't really have faith that they'd be able to tackle it with the proper thoughtfullness and nuance such a thing needs in order to not just feel frustrating.

I skiped the mid part of your post, where you were talking about your religion believes ... so if there is answer to my question ... this is the reason.

Most cruicial part of the question is missing ... what effect it would have on gameplay?

I don't want alignment to exist so I voted for none, as to me it's a useless feature that doesn't add anything meaningful to the way I play my characters and roleplay. And more often than not ends up feeling restrictive and contradictory.

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.

The mid part was more of a "why I'm creating this post" and "something to think about". In other words, it's my beliefs, and Pathfinder's Lawful Good beliefs don't seem to coincide with mine. So keep that in mind when you are making a decision on this. If Larian was to implement alignment, would you REALLY want it to be dynamic like Pathfinder where the game can shift your alignment because Larian believes your actions aren't being Lawful Good (or whatever alignment you are)? I, personally, find that Owlcat's Lawful Good doesn't align with my own, and that was the point.

As far as what effect to gameplay, it boils down to spells and items mostly - at least from a pure mechanics perspective. In D&D, some spells protect you against Evil or Good or Lawful or Neutral or Chaotic alignments. Some items do likewise or are only usable by specific alignments, making those items more unique and making it so that you can't just use a powerful, holy sword of Tyr when you are a nasty, evil paladin of Zariel (such as with the Tyrite hunting Karlach - assuming he's an evil paladin of Zariel). You want to use the Sword of Justice? You need to be Lawful Good. You can't use Tyr's power against Tyr's own people. Likewise, you can't use Shar's power against a Sharran if you are a Selunite.

That is the point of alignment from a mechanics perspective. The other point is that it is supposed to help you get into the role of your character. If you select an alignment for your character, it helps you get into your character. If I know my character is Lawful Evil, I will try to play my character as a law abiding nutjob who obeys the letter of the law regardless of how cruel and harsh it is. It helps me make decisions in dialogue because I have a more firm idea of who my character is.

As BG3 is now, I can quickly create a character and then have no real clue what kind of personality I want to give them. So, what results is a rather chaotic approach until I get a feel for how I really want them to be. At least by choosing an alignment, I'd have a more firm idea. My Rogue is Chaotic Good, so I know that when it comes to dealing with Us, she's probably going to not kill it because she tries to not harm any creatures, even if they are potentially evil. My Chaotic Evil Drow Sorcerer would likely try to keep Us alive and cripple it so that it can use Us as a minion for as long as possible. My Lawful Good Paladin would probably be more black and white, seeing Us as an evil creature that will undoubtedly kill others if he doesn't kill it immediately.

Without alignment, I have had several playthroughs with characters where I got to Us (as just an example) and said, "What am I going to have this character be? Hmmm. I don't know. Should I be Chaotic Good? Should I be Lawful Good? Should I be Neutral?" And then, for Us, I chose to be Chaotic Good but later wound up floundering a bit and being Lawful Good. Then later I chose to be almost borderline Lawful Evil all because I didn't really have a firm idea from the beginning what basic personality type and alignment my character had.

It's not REALLY vital for story and roleplaying to have an alignment, but it helps. So, I'm not saying that it's imperative. I'm just giving you an idea of how it could help players in the game.

I think in BG3 your background kinda helps to navigate your character and it will get even more influence progressively as the proficiency bonus for skills increases.

I dont' like elignment and effect it has on gameplay (if it has effect - if it doesn't then it is a superflues feature and should be cut) - in my opinion stuff like that should be used to track players actions and create reactivity to it, not to have players try to guess which responses will net them desired elignment points. As such disposing with alignment all together is my preference - I would welcome some reputation system, but it seems like for the most part Larian doesn't want to do abstractions - all reactivity seems hand crafted and linked to individual choices. As such I see no use for alignment. None is my first choice.

But as I said, I do like reactivity to reputation system, and while flawed alignment can do. My second choice would be to have dynamic alignment as long as Larian would create reactivity for it. (not gonna happen at this stage).

While alignment systems aren't necessary, they're good for helping you ground a character in a game. I find that they're most useful in a first playthrough, especially if you're not familiar with the setting. In a first playthrough, I at least rarely have as deep an idea for my character as I do in later playthroughs. So alignment choices give me something to fall back on, a sort of "when in doubt, pick this" option I can use when I'm not sure what my character would do in a situation. I find that they're also a nice way for a game to telegraph that a thing matters sometimes. They can help you understand what the game will react to.

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.

I voted for none as my first choice, and the dynamic options as my 2nd and 3rd choices. Static is the worst option to me because you have no choices beyond the initial choice that are reflected in the game.

I don't like alignment because its an oversimplification of human (or sapient) behavior. I **DO** think that your actions should have consequences based upon the reactions of NPC's to what you do and who you are affiliated with.

In the context of a video game setting up these reactions in a realistic way is probably a lot of work, and in many cases in may be reasonable to simplify and just use alignment. The implementation in WotR could use some work, but its not terrible. They could avoid the problem GM4Him outlined if they put law-chaos and good-evil on completely separate axis rather than on a 2D coordinate plane.

In any case, setting up dilema's that impact your alignment is fine if you don't want to take the time to model interactions more accurately (which probably is not worth it in most games anyway).

I don't like using alignment as a simple label that allows you to decide who you are allowed to kill on site. I know there are some who disagree on this point. Lets just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Yeah. Dang! I want to take my own votes back. Grrr. I'm now thinking I'd probably prefer a Dynamic (You Decide) as my primary choice with None being second and Static being third.

I REALLY don't want Larian or anyone deciding Alignment Shifting, and I don't really like that Pathfinder tells you what Alignment each choice belongs to. I don't agree with them a lot of the time, and I don't think they should break it up all the time between Lawful and Good and Neutral, etc. It should be more like Lawful Good option, Neutral Good option, Lawful Evil option, etc. Also, in Pathfinder, some dialogue options are locked out if your alignment doesn't align. I don't like that also.

So I'd probably prefer Dynamic (You Decide) then None and then Static because you're right. Static means you remain Lawful Good even if you decide to help Minthara slaughter the entire grove.

Naturaly ...

I mean feel free to corect me, but as far as i know ... if you are "Lawful" it means only that there is *some* set of rules that is not your own, that you are following without questioning and often even hesitation.
For example ...
Devils are Lawfull ... Githynaki are Lawfull ... there are several Lawfull Gods ...
And yet no two set of Laws from theese cases are same ... its just existence of some order, that means they are Lawfull, no matter what kind of order it is ...

Someone mentioned earlier that in some other game, one Lawfull option was to persuate a monk to betray his order ... i dont think that is bad example, as long as character who does that have in those Laws somewhere stated that everyone who dont follow their believe, should be converted.
IF so ... then such action is perfectly lawfull imho.


I see ...
Well this would seriously affect my decision.

I mean if the game would have option to strip my Cleric or Paladin of all their powers, bcs i didnt pick the *right* option in chat ... that would suck ... and i would rather have none.
Same goes for conversations ... if i would be restricted to say only things that goes perfectly with my aligment ... that would suck aswell.

On the other hand tho ...
If the game would use aligments as some sort of guidances, that would only help me understand the world better ... like having certain dialogue choices red, to show that they are direct oposite of what would character with such aligment say (as angry DM would probably mention if i would try to do that) ...
Well ... i would like that.

But then again on the third hand ...
If the game wouldnt recognize your aligment at all in any way ... there is no reason to implement it at all. :-/

Creating a D&D game that was a RPG morality play would be more in line with an absolute alignment, the world in the Bible, and in morality plays, has an alignment that its players are rewarded and punished for acting in. To me though D&D works better as heroic or chivalric tragedies and romances, people should have absolute ideals which make them heroic, and fatal flaws that betray them. How I'd put that into alignment terms, you believe in something, but are not always able to act in those terms. Falling short of that alignment doesn't change your alignment but it should have negative ramifications for your character, eventually you might find you no longer believe in something, possibly because you've come to resent its strictures, at which point your alignment changes. That's not exactly easy to do in a video game, but I think a point system like the Pathfinder games do, isn't a good approximation, 'farming' 100 ravenous goblins to gain +100 points of 'good' shouldn't have an effect on a single much more heinous act that you chose to do for selfish reasons but only amounts to +50 evil points.
This goes out the window when you get extraplanar of course, because alignment is actually material there.
Your alignment should be fixed, your character rewarded or punished for acting in it, and a system of determining your motivations should then inform what your alignment is.

So I went Static > Dynamic > You Choose, But None is interesting too, if alignment still existed but wasn't player facing.

Right. That's why I said, it actually does require a good deal of thinking before answering. That's why I'm mad at myself for being too quick to put my own votes out there. RRRrrrrg. I should have followed my own advice.

I, too, don't mind if they give you some tags to let you know that TYPICALLY a certain dialogue option would be considered a particular alignment, but I don't want them automatically shifting your alignment if you go with that particular dialogue option.

For example. You're a Lawful Good Cleric. You decide to go with a Chaotic dialogue option that is a bit snarky and cutting. Yeah. So what. It's an offhanded comment. You shouldn't receive Chaotic Alignment points that shift you towards Chaotic just because you went with a more Chaotic response. Like you said, if the Tool Tips let you know that they are just tagged to guide you, that's perfectly fine in my book. I just don't want them shifting your alignment.

Like you said, and like my example with my Paladin, I CERTAINLY don't like a shift in alignment that suddenly makes it so you can't use powers or items that you either currently can use or you plan on using later. THAT really sucked in Pathfinder. I spent almost a whole level without the use of my Paladin abilities and even had to level up as a Cavalier before I could get back to being Lawful Good. Although it didn't totally break my gameplay, it was not a fun experience.

I want alignments in game, as they can add a lot to gameplay if implemented right.

My prefered choice would be dynamic alignment, as it has always been in (A)D&D. Static alignments (Solasta) or dynamic (choice at certain points) would be ok as well, everything is better than the current situation.

I see ...

Well then my votes are:
1) None ...
Bcs this is feature that can easily go terribly wrong, and is certainly not so easy to implement corectly ... curently when i create some Tav, i allready have characteristic in my head ... and that works well for me, i dont need to think if im more chaotic, or neutral ... if im more good or neutral ... or neither.
It may seem odd ...
But one of my characters (Zyraela, Tiefling, Fiend Warlock, Entertainer, patological liar) dont really have stricktly picked Aligment ... she is Neutral towards almost everyone ... except Tiefling towards wich she is allways as Good as possible, even if that would mean sacrificing herself ... and Humans, towards wich she is allways as Evil as possible, often even inocents, often without visible reason, often including betrayal and murder ...
There is background reason for this, maybe not good one ... but i like it.

And i have no idea how would i pick Aligment for her ...
So, this choice seems best for that reason.

2) I didnt vote ...
Just to demonstrate that my second option is "only if nothing else works and you REEEEEEALY wants to implement this".

3) Dynamic (You Decide) ...
Basicaly same reasons as abowe.

Seems like some type of neutral to me... Lawful, maybe? Because the character has a set of rules about who she likes/dislikes, so there is some personal agenda going on here, pretty typical for lawful neutral type.

Some other RPG's handle situations like this via passions or traits possessed by an individual. For instance, you could have the passions: loves Tieflings, hates humans, and must lie (and maybe a few others to round out the character). Each of these passions can have a numerical rating, which you may then use as a bonus or a malus when you attempt an action related to them. For instance, if you decide that a situation calls for telling the truth you would have to overcome your "must lie" rating.

This is much more flexible than alignment and can lead to some very interesting interactions. However, implementing in a video game would likely not be particularly satisfying, due to the fact that a large number of passions would necessarily mean fewer interactions per passion. A GM in a table top game can adjust as needed based on the players at their table, and it can be effective there.