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.
