Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Alignment?

I've been kinda priding myself on being very much "in-the-know" with all of this BG3 information, but the one thing that I can't recall stumbling across is the implementation of alignments.
Did I miss a post or some news about whether or not they'll be available in the game at all, or in Early Access? I'd love a link if one's available.

Also, side-note: I took WOTC's Alignment Test on a few separate days to gauge a more accurate result not based on answers influenced by my mood in that moment, and I'm shocked that I consistently came back as Chaotic Evil. Maybe I'm so self-interested and defiant that I've managed to deceive myself into the idea that I'm a decent person? I'm actually somewhat devastated by this outcome, lol. Can anyone recommend a comprehensive questionnaire to determine my alignment? I'd like a second opinion.

Larian said that WotC actually asked them to diminish the presence of alignment in BG3. Unless something has changed, you won’t pick an alignment in character creation.

WHAT!!???? D&D without alignment?

That's like Abbott without Costello.

Actually, come to think of it none of the DMs I play with ever mention alignment at all, and I certainly don’t demand players select one. So this is actually more like table top for me.

"The alignment is more like guidelines than actual rules".

If you want a good test, do this here for free: https://www.16personalities.com/

My short version is
Maximum good = compassion & sacrifice > Good = understanding & sympathy > Neutral = there is no neutral > Evil = indiference & lack of empathy > Greatest Evil = hate & hurting others

No rigid alignment displayed on the character page does not mean that your actions no longer matter or that characters don't have personality. Companions and other NPC characters still have preferences, and they'll still react to your choices, either favorably or unfavorably.

It means that you can role-play your character instead of role-playing one of nine boxes. If dialogue options are tagged with alignment flags, many people would feel more obliged to pick the one which matched the box they put their character in, even if they would prefer to pick a different option. This would be especially bad for "Neutral" alignments which would feel more strongly a need to ping-pong between different ones.

Also this "Online Alignment Test" is very stupid at https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Fdnd%2F20001222b

"Family elders are expressing disapproval of you to the rest of the family. Do you:

Accept the criticism and change your ways
Seek a compromise with the elders
Besmirch the reputation of the elders as you ignore their scorn
Silence the elders any way you can"

You just have to assume that the "family elders" are right, but that's very mindless position to have in life: instead always question everything, don't just follow blindly, because nobody knows everything, our "wisdom" is partial, incomplete, and ast times wrong, even in basic things.

But let's assume somehow that those "family elders" are somehow perfect and their wisdom is endless and eternal (because if they aren't then obviously they should just shut the f*k up), and still we get tho this question:
"If your family had arranged your marriage to someone loathsome, would you:"
Now that's it. Burn them with fire!!

Now really, who wrote all that stupidity? I pray to every god that those people will never be writers in a game, that's just unbelievable low level of being wrong. Never think about being evil after a test like that.

You would be really evil if you didn't stood up and fought them back. Never copy the stupidity of your ancestors, that's why we still have wars and hate each other, instead living in harmony. Humanity needs to grow up, this gone too far.

I just tried that, half and half in the guise of a prospective character and just being myself, and was quite disappointed that, in spite of some presumptuously "edgy" answers, I got "lawful good". I'd hoped for "chaotic hungover" or something.

Oh well, if BG3 isn't sticking rigidly to alignments I can do that anyway.

16 of them? Not Myers-Briggs, by any chance...? AFAIR it's not "proper science" (well, if anything is when it comes to psychology) but kinda fun as long as it's not taken too seriously. IIRC I'm INFP (or is it INTJ?) which means, er... "chaotic hungover", I think.

I took that one a while ago and this is where I landed:
https://imgur.com/a/dBXEt1u

That's why I guess I'm shocked that the WOTC system has me listed as an equivalent to mindless demons, lol.

I just mean those for fun, sometimes helpful as well, few good advices there but they have a support forum for those willing to change & improve (I guess people with problems, it's explained there on site, don't remember which university related).

I just do it for fun and give to friends so we can have a good laugh, but can be useful as well, just don't take the results very seriously (there is always hope, even if you get "bad" results, life goes on and can be better, always)

You got the same as me (which it transpires is the same result I got when I took it many years ago) yet WOTC's result was apparently the opposite of yours, curiously.


Oh yeah, fun/useful is fine, just avoid paying money for anything based on this stuff! "Personality test" often sets off alarm bells: the fun stuff should really have no bad outcome, just something amusing and maybe thought-provoking.

I still got "Lawful Good" at D&D Online Alignment Test, but didn't like many answers at all, so had to pick a lesser one, just because there wasn't anything better.
That test assumes that the world is perfect and we don't have to make it better, just obey the law and be a nice "sheep". That's not true, not even in fairy land, sadly.

I got this at 16 test, https://www.16personalities.com/enfj-personality
That's fairly accurate, about 75% true.
I love to moderate, not on forums though just a peacekeeper or peacemaker rather, and I easily fall in love with everyone (not literally), because almost everyone can be turned into a being of light. Surroundings and circumstances really mold us into what we are, and very few are strong and brave enough to not just follow the easy way and blend in, but do what is right, being convinced that is worth living that way and that is the only way; and they are those who can help others to find the way out from every little nightmare that make our life a hell.
Who we are it is up to us, and it's always good to look in the "mirror" (the people next to us, and then the world around us) and make a few changes. We can do better, and we will in time. Every little bit helps, nothing is wasted. And if here, this is a very fun speech from Admiral McRaven https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HY8nDp5Fn0

Yeah, that's why I had to get into a potential character's guise for some of the questions as real-world answers would've skewed the results: they were looking for an ideal, not actual life experience. As ever, context is everything.

I'd declare my alignment based on the landscape of the plane in which I want my PC's soul to reside after death. Pandemonium seems most unpleasant, for example, but kayaking on the lakes of Lunia, or hiking through the forests of the Happy Hunting Grounds are things I would love to do. Hopefully they will let me in, when the time comes.

Hmm, in theory ENFJ seems quite a way away from INFP, but perhaps that's symptomatic of the fallibility of Myers-Briggs. What it seems to have in common is the predisposition to be a diplomat; by which I mean in intent rather than effectiveness, at least in my case! I've noticed it's often a thankless task but I'll do it anyway (no reference to forum moderation, more of a RL observation). Someone has to, I suppose.

Aaaaaaaanyway. I hope BG3 adapts to the way any given player plays any given character. Most RPGs are at least okay with that but a few blithely assume they know better than you what your direction is going to be. Which seems to remove the "RP" element of the game.

I always get Chaotic Good on those tests. Down with the king! He deserved far worse than the poison I slipped in his chalice . . .

And @Commodore_Tyrs got it right. D&D without alignment is Abbot with Costello, berries without cream. It's just something other than D&D. And yeah, I know this this coming from WotC but, well, they are rong. Rong! They tried to eliminate alignment in 4th ed and were forced to bring it back due to pressure from fans.

The tension in Keldorn's story doesn't make sense without alignment. When his wife has an affair Keldorn doesn't have a Lawful Good response. He is forced to choose between Lawful Neutral / Lawful Evil response of taking his wife to courts and letting her be hanged for her crime or the the Neutral / Chaotic Good path of first seeking vengeance and finding his way to self reflection, forgiveness and gratitude. For a neutral good character there's no tension at all but for someone whose spiritual powers and very identity hinge on upholding both the Law and the Good this is true dilemma -- he is forced to choose between one or the other. May Torm forgive him his choice.

And "no alignment" is just a trend right now -- Game of Thrones has more of a pull on people's imagination than does the Fellowship of the Ring and/or the Elric Saga. But but D&D wasn't built on the ideology of realpolitik -- it's its own thing with its own history.

I'm excited to play the game but I plan on letting Larian and WotC know that they need to include alignment in the final release.

I've always played Neutral Good or Neutral Evil. I am, at heart, pragmatic, but the idea of True Neutral is too regimented, and Chaotic and Lawful neutrals are just boring stereotypes. If I feel like generally caring about things, Neutral Good. If I feel like generally not caring about things, Neutral Evil.

I don't even necessarily need it overtly placed with big brackets next to dialog choices. I really do like walking down specific paths and generally, dialog choices in games either don't have the variety necessary to make alignments work properly, or the interpretation of an alignment is just off entirely. I'm hoping for some nuance that has a discernible impact.