A eulogy for Alignment in CRPGs

[Shitty Kitty]

Nigger an RPG is playing pretend. You want a numbers-and-dice-rolling murderhobo sim, not an RPG.

Another strawman, what a shock.

I like how you don’t even deny you just want to play pretend though.

You’re arguing in bad faith since you claim the system is inadequate, but really you just hate the concept of defining things because it limits you. Childish.

Larp harder, casual.

Ok retard. You should run along and let the adults talk, I hear there are people who haven't heard how much you hate the Jews yet. Get on it.

Uh huh. Keep deflecting. Maybe no one will notice what a giant moron you are and how you not only lost the argument, but also admitted that you’re a filthy larping casual.

Your accusation has no merit and is dismissed forthwith. Go shine your goosesteppin'-boots or something else marginally constructive, dipshit.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Nigger an RPG is playing pretend. You want a numbers-and-dice-rolling murderhobo sim, not an RPG.

Another strawman, what a shock.

I like how you don’t even deny you just want to play pretend though.

You’re arguing in bad faith since you claim the system is inadequate, but really you just hate the concept of defining things because it limits you. Childish.

Larp harder, casual.

Ok retard. You should run along and let the adults talk, I hear there are people who haven't heard how much you hate the Jews yet. Get on it.

Uh huh. Keep deflecting. Maybe no one will notice what a giant moron you are and how you not only lost the argument, but also admitted that you’re a filthy larping casual.

Your accusation has no merit and is dismissed forthwith. Go shine your goosesteppin'-boots or something else marginally constructive, dipshit.

I’ve kept all posts constructive. You stopped arguing and switched to strawmen and baseless insults just before I called you on being a larping faggot who just wants to play pretend.

And given that you’re an edgelord who just began one of his posts with “nigger”, I don’t think you have any room to look down on me for being racist.

I don’t care if you call me a Nazi btw and I’d happily goosestep your ass into a gas chamber if I wasn’t almost certain at this point that you’re a child.

Everyone can see what you are. A whiny, casual bitch who shouldn’t even be on this site.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Nigger an RPG is playing pretend. You want a numbers-and-dice-rolling murderhobo sim, not an RPG.

Another strawman, what a shock.

I like how you don’t even deny you just want to play pretend though.

You’re arguing in bad faith since you claim the system is inadequate, but really you just hate the concept of defining things because it limits you. Childish.

Larp harder, casual.

Ok retard. You should run along and let the adults talk, I hear there are people who haven't heard how much you hate the Jews yet. Get on it.

Uh huh. Keep deflecting. Maybe no one will notice what a giant moron you are and how you not only lost the argument, but also admitted that you’re a filthy larping casual.

Your accusation has no merit and is dismissed forthwith. Go shine your goosesteppin'-boots or something else marginally constructive, dipshit.

I’ve kept all posts constructive. You stopped arguing and switched to strawmen and baseless insults just before I called you on being a larping faggot who just wants to play pretend.

And given that you’re an edgelord who just began one of his posts with “nigger”, I don’t think you have any room to look down on me for being racist.

I don’t care if you call me a Nazi btw and I’d happily goosestep your ass into a gas chamber.

Everyone can see what you are. A whiny, casual bitch who shouldn’t even be on this site.

Motherfucker you went right to my "cred" first thing, don't give me that bullshit. You're a shitheel who can't take what he dishes out. Cry about it.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Motherfucker you went right to my "cred" first thing, don't give me that bullshit. You're a shitheel who can't take what he dishes out. Cry about it.

Why do you put “cred” in quotes like I used that word?

Time for you to run home to mommy, you snotty little cunt. You don’t belong here.

 

[Heroic Liberator]

Spoiler

Infinitron

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Nigger an RPG is playing pretend. You want a numbers-and-dice-rolling murderhobo sim, not an RPG.

Another strawman, what a shock.

I like how you don’t even deny you just want to play pretend though.

You’re arguing in bad faith since you claim the system is inadequate, but really you just hate the concept of defining things because it limits you. Childish.

Larp harder, casual.

Ok retard. You should run along and let the adults talk, I hear there are people who haven't heard how much you hate the Jews yet. Get on it.

Uh huh. Keep deflecting. Maybe no one will notice what a giant moron you are and how you not only lost the argument, but also admitted that you’re a filthy larping casual.

Your accusation has no merit and is dismissed forthwith. Go shine your goosesteppin'-boots or something else marginally constructive, dipshit.

I’ve kept all posts constructive. You stopped arguing and switched to strawmen and baseless insults just before I called you on being a larping faggot who just wants to play pretend.

And given that you’re an edgelord who just began one of his posts with “nigger”, I don’t think you have any room to look down on me for being racist.

I don’t care if you call me a Nazi btw and I’d happily goosestep your ass into a gas chamber.

Everyone can see what you are. A whiny, casual bitch who shouldn’t even be on this site.

Motherfucker you went right to my "cred" first thing, don't give me that bullshit. You're a shitheel who can't take what he dishes out. Cry about it.

Why do you put “cred” in quotes like I used that word?

Time for you to run home to mommy and play Xbox, you snotty little cunt. You don’t belong here.

Eat a bag of dicks, you smarmy shitcock. I'd accuse you of playing dumb, but there's a very real possibility you bounced one too many times when you fell off the turnip truck.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Eat a bag of dicks, you smarmy shitcock. I'd accuse you of playing dumb, but there's a very real possibility you bounced one too many times when you fell off the turnip truck.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

 

[Shitty Kitty]

Eat a bag of dicks, you smarmy shitcock. I'd accuse you of playing dumb, but there's a very real possibility you bounced one too many times when you fell off the turnip truck.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

And in the absence of any real wit you settle for quoting someone else who actually possessed it.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Eat a bag of dicks, you smarmy shitcock. I'd accuse you of playing dumb, but there's a very real possibility you bounced one too many times when you fell off the turnip truck.

How appropriate. You fight like a cow.

And in the absence of any real wit you settle for quoting someone else who actually possessed it.

Ok, kiddo. It’s been real, but since the discussion stopped a long time ago, this little pissing contest of ours has to end so that people can get back to the actual thread.

 

[Kazuki]

Alignment isn't perfect, but to completely dropped it is a bad idea.

I like academic and analysis discussion that came out based on character alignment rather than just morally grey that more often came out as bland and boring.

 

[Harthwain]

The presence of numbers is what differentiates an RPG from playing pretend.

While this is true, the race isn't merely a stat bonus/penalty. It's a roleplaying choice, which can incur tanglible consequences, provided your GM wants to bother with it. Or else we wouldn't have had Viconia being put on the stake simply because she is a Drow in BG2 (by the way, you could be low-INT half-Orc in BG2 and nobody would notice, which is very different approach from that presented in Arcanum).

I don’t care if you call me a Nazi btw and I’d happily goosestep your ass into a gas chamber if I wasn’t almost certain at this point that you’re a child.

That's not very Nazi-like thing to do. Fun fact: Children below a certain age (usually 12) were less likely to survive, because they were seen as unfit for work and as such they were sent to the gas chambers first.

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

While this is true, the race isn't merely a stat bonus/penalty. It's a roleplaying choice, which can incur tanglible consequences, provided your GM wants to bother with it. Or else we wouldn't have had Viconia being put on the stake simply because she is a Drow in BG2 (by the way, you could be low-INT half-Orc in BG2 and nobody would notice, which is very different approach from that presented in Arcanum).

I agree in principle, however, more consequences to your choices are generally better than fewer.

There are more consequences to a low-INT character in Arcanum in general, let alone a low-INT orc.

That's not very Nazi-like thing to do. Fun fact: Children below a certain age (usually 12) were less likely to survive, because they were seen as unfit for work and as such they were sent to the gas chambers first.

Holocaust didn't happen lol.

 

[HeatEXTEND]

"N-no u!" screams the retard who wants to boil down philosophy to 9 choices

Buddy, games are specifically meant to boil down. They set up boundaries within which aspects of reality are quartered off and given a form suited for consumption. This is elementary stuff, if you are going to swing a sword at least be sure which side does the cutting so you don't end up bleeding all over yourself. I'll admit I feel kinda sorry for you; I'd guess your social contacts are mostly idiots, giving you an inflated idea of your own intelligence/ability to reason . Here's a protip: don't bring up "philosophy" or "moral relativism" outside of your IRL social circle. Throwing those words around might seem "interesting" and "deep" to your friends, it's also a great way to red-flag yourself as a retard, retard.

Spoiler

inb4 i was only pretending.

 

[DraQ]

I disagree. I remember back when I played BG for the first time, my alignment served as a constant reminder as to what kind of character I was playing and kept my game consistent. The world also reacted to it, prohibiting me from using some items and spells and letting me use others.

Are we thinking of the same game here?
I mean the one where a greedy dorf motivated purely by lust for gold would leave the party while bitching profusely for taking the more lucrative options and getting discounts at traders because that's not evil enough?

Wait, you must be using some rare meaning of the word "consistency" I have not been aware of.

If anything BG is a perfect example of a game that would only benefit if someone took its alignment system outside and double-tapped it between the eyes.

And that’s BG, which had a mostly broken and superficial implementation of the alignment system.

While at times I disagreed with the alignment system (often times Jaheira is NG, not TN)

And this illustrates one of the many problems with alignment systems - it constraints ability to create characters as envisioned because, for example, muh TN druids.

It adds structure and reactivity when properly implemented.

According to formal logic this is inescapably true.

Spoiler

From false premise anything follows.

It’s also a useful tool in game design to try to make sure characters have some moral and philosophical dimensions beyond their immediate plot objectives.

Actually all it does is ensuring any moral and philosophical depth is savagely truncated.

Of course, when improperly implemented, it’s trash, but so is any system.

Good systems differ in that they *can* be properly implemented.

I agree in principle, however, more consequences to your choices are generally better than fewer.

There are more consequences to a low-INT character in Arcanum in general, let alone a low-INT orc.


Holocaust didn't happen lol.

If only there were consequences to low-INT shitposting.

 

[DraQ]

Alignment isn't perfect, but to completely dropped it is a bad idea.

I like academic and analysis discussion that came out based on character alignment rather than just morally grey that more often came out as bland and boring.

You keep using those words. I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

 

[DraQ]

This thread and 2020 RPGCodex in a nutshell:

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

Are we thinking of the same game here?
I mean the one where a greedy dorf motivated purely by lust for gold would leave the party while bitching profusely for taking the more lucrative options and getting discounts at traders because that's not evil enough?

Wait, you must be using some rare meaning of the word "consistency" I have not been aware of.

If anything BG is a perfect example of a game that would only benefit if someone took its alignment system outside and double-tapped it between the eyes.

I said the alignment system was broken in the game in many ways. For example, many NPCs have nonsensical alignments that were never patched. Fan patches eventually took care of them.

By consistency, I was referring to the way the world reacted to my character’s alignment and the fact that I had a reminder of who my character was that was a part of the game. Even if that alignment were to change, it’s still structure and the world reacts to it. It helped *me* stay consistent and helped my character feel consistent.

And as to said dwarf, you’re talking about reputation, not the alignment system, which is FAR more broken than the alignment system. Especially given the fact that you can buy reputation points at the temple, there should be no issue with an evil party having a high reputation.

Your argument serves to show why alignment is needed beyond reputation.

Thanks for proving my point.

And this illustrates one of the many problems with alignment systems - it constraints ability to create characters as envisioned because, for example, muh TN druids.

If you don’t care for the balance, you’re not a Druid. Just like if you don’t care about the law, you’re not a paladin. Per the rules, you actually can end up a fallen Druid of sorts that loses access to some spells.

You can take “evil” actions to preserve the balance or “good“ actions to save lives etc, but you won’t be starting crusades against evil.

http://dark-wolf.weebly.com/add-2---druids-guide.html

It’s like asking to be an honorless, faithless paladin. That’s called a fighter.

According to formal logic this is inescapably true.

That’s not an argument.

Actually all it does is ensuring any moral and philosophical depth is savagely truncated.

As Gygax and the player’s handbook both state and demonstrate, no, you’re completely wrong.

Good systems differ in that they *can* be properly implemented.

D&D is a fine implementation on its own.

If some devs have a problem adapting it for video games, that’s on them, not the ruleset.

If only there were consequences to low-INT shitposting.

You would have been executed long ago lol

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

This thread and 2020 RPGCodex in a nutshell:

Another larper who just hates any structure that prevents him from just doing whatever he wants.

Shouldn’t you be in a TES thread waxing poetic about your favorite walking simulators as you’ve been doing for years?

 

[DraQ]

By consistency, I was referring to the way the world reacted to my character’s alignment

It did? Apart from rather narrow and artificial mechanical consequences like being affected by protection from evil or detect evil spells.
Most of the time the world was merely reacting to the karma meter (misleadingly referred to as reputation), which is a retarded, little sibling of a proper reputation system.

and the fact that I had a reminder of who my character was that was a part of the game. Even if that alignment were to change, it’s still structure and the world reacts to it. It helped *me* stay consistent and helped my character feel consistent.

So the main advantage of alignment is that it is a mnemonic for players who for some reason (which I won't spell out directly) are unable to remember their character's concept and stick to it. Got it.

And as to said dwarf, you’re talking about reputation, not the alignment system, which is FAR more broken than the alignment system. Especially given the fact that you can buy reputation points at the temple, there should be no issue with an evil party having a high reputation.

Your argument serves to show why alignment is needed beyond reputation.

No, I'm talking about alignment.
BG's "reputation" is indeed a glorified karma meter and those are shitty in their own right, but here I'm specifically talking about how alignment interacts with it. Was it not for alignment, there would be no mechanism to compel a greedy dorf to hate gold, being showered with expensive goodies and shop discounts. The only reason for that is that he is labelled LE and the quest solutions leading to the outcomes he'd approve of the most happen to be labelled good.

If you don’t care for the balance, you’re not a Druid. Just like if you don’t care about the law, you’re not a paladin.

Funny how you not only can have proper balance fostering druids and lawful paladins in settings completely devoid of alignment system but also have them be much more meaningful and distinctive in terms of adopted stance due to not being forced through 3x3 cheese-grater.

You would have been executed long ago lol

There is funny thing about being low INT that you might not be aware of despite it being pertinent to your situation - you're not exactly great at reaching the right conclusions.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

The debate about character alignment of late has driven me to give my thoughts on the subject. In the original edition of the D&D® game, all characters were told that “it is not only necessary to select a role, but it is also necessary to determine what stance the character will take.” To the new hobby of fantasy role-playing, character alignment was an important concept. Not only did it state what the imaginary player character believed, but it also served to help the player to better take on the role of his or her persona.

In later supplements of the original rules set, alignment was taken a step farther. It was used as a means (along with ability scores) to determine whether or not a PC was eligible for one of the more specialized (and often more powerful) subclasses. In this way, alignment was a tool used by both the players and the Dungeon Master to relate to the characters’ beliefs, ways of acting, and to restrict entrance into certain sub-classes.

It has been eleven years since the original D&D game appeared. While many of the ideas found in those little brown booklets and supplements were expanded and revised for inclusion in the AD&D game, alignment was not one of them. Even though the number of possible alignments has been tripled and more detailed descriptions of each ethos given, they are used as little more than tools for the players and Dungeon Master, in much the same way as was done over a decade ago.

My belief is that alignment should be used to restrict entrance into certain character classes and to determine how a player character will act in most circumstances. For example, an assassin, no matter how evil or chaotic he or she may be, would not attack the first group of good and/or neutral adventurers sighted simply because of their conflicting alignments. The assassin character class as written is composed of very intelligent individuals who make a living by killing those individuals who are deemed “troublesome” by the assassin’s employer. Being as intelligent as he is, an assassin would know when a particular job was over his head. Intelligence, not only alignment, should dictate how a character reacts to certain situations. Similarly, paladins do not charge the first demon prince they see, even though such a creature is diametrically opposed in its beliefs and actions.

Thus, alignment has been around with fantasy role-playing games too long simply to be forgotten. It is still an integral part of the game. Alignment, like other aspects of the game, needs only to be restructured in order to once again take its place of importance among the minds of players and their fantasy personae. Remember that all that needs to be done is use your head!

James Maliszewski
Baltimore, Md.

- Letter to the Editor appearing in Dragon Magazine #105, January 1986

 

[DraQ]

That doesn't work in Forgotten Realms though. Alignment has metaphysical ramifications. There are literally spells and abilities which have effects dependant on the target's target's predispositions.

It's just another layer of reactivity in this case.

Playing an evil knight? You get to use the evil greatsword of choas +5

Playing a good sorcerer? You get to cast the good sorcerer spell or resist X or whatever.

It's a reward for playing your character a certain way and reactivity to make you feel your choices matter.

You guys would probably streamline out all the stats if we gave you enough time.

I'm getting major "why can't we have muscle wizards???" retardation vibes off of this thread.

It's just another layer of reactivity in this case.

Playing a muscle wizard? You get to cast FIST!


Brainlets ITT and their unwitting irony is too good to pass up.

 

[DraQ]

Removing the alignment system is just dumbing down the game because you the player don’t understand how to use it.

Removing. A. Massive. Simplification. Is. Dumbing. Down. What.

Wait, I've got it...

.ti esu ot woh dnatsrednu t’nod reyalp eht uoy esuaceb emag eht nwod gnibmud tsuj si metsys tnemngila eht gnivomeR

Nope, doesn't make any more sense this way.
Nor less, for that matter.

 

[DraQ]

Ok, to anyone willing to defend D&D alignment system specifically (who also isn't a drooling retard, I think we can already thank those for their relentless participation):

How the hell do you want to have a meaningful conflict if one side effectively comes pre-labelled as wrong?
Unless of course you want to argue that evil is just as good option as good, but stacking absolutism and relativism this way is doublethink of so epic proportions that I feel the need to lie down just trying to think of it.

Now, doing away with or replacing good-evil axis with something less pre-valued like selfless-selfish helps in this regard (and gets rid of awkward disparities between usual solitary animal selfishness and malevolent selfishness), but it leads directly to second question:

What, apart from shitty metagame based on shitty metadata (alignment targetting mechanics, basically) does alignment bring into game that is valuable and not replicable by better means?

 

[a cut of domestic sheep prime]

It did? Apart from rather narrow and artificial mechanical consequences like being affected by protection from evil or detect evil spells.
Most of the time the world was merely reacting to the karma meter (misleadingly referred to as reputation), which is a retarded, little sibling of a proper reputation system.

Wrong, it was a reputation system, since donating to the temple, for example, is specifically referred to as improving your reputation, not your karma.

You can argue it was broken and illogical at times or that the game TREATED it as if it were a karma system, but it's not a completely different system being referred to by the wrong name. It's clearly and consistently called a reputation system and doesn't influence alignment directly. Gaining a good reputation doesn't change your alignment (though it does get you different bhaalspawn owers in the first game, hence why I say it's treated as karma, even though it isn't karma).

I already listed the ways even BG1 reacted to your alignment. There were also dialog that did later iirc. The game didn't have an abundance of reactivity compared to modern games that give you (usually a false) extra choice based on stats every other dialog, but it was there.

Pathfinder gives more reactivity, but again, it's far from a perfect implementation, often times suffering from the same delusion as many itt that alignment = light side/dark side points.

So the main advantage of alignment is that it is a mnemonic for players who for some reason (which I won't spell out directly) are unable to remember their character's concept and stick to it. Got it.

Again, you're taking one part of my argument and pretending its the whole of it.

When the world reacts to your alignment as well, whether via dialog options, item restrictions, different familiars, class restrictions or other such things, it serves to help the player continue to play his the character he envisioned at the start with modifications as time goes on. The paladin in BG1 who hunts evil characters for example - again, to spell this out: I'm using the BG series as an example precisely because it's broken and yet still succeeds in showing why alignment is both need and welcome.

No, I'm talking about alignment.
BG's "reputation" is indeed a glorified karma meter and those are shitty in their own right, but here I'm specifically talking about how alignment interacts with it. Was it not for alignment, there would be no mechanism to compel a greedy dorf to hate gold, being showered with expensive goodies and shop discounts. The only reason for that is that he is labelled LE and the quest solutions leading to the outcomes he'd approve of the most happen to be labelled good.

That's retarded. You just admitted the reputation system was broken and now you're blaming the alignment system for negative results from it.

He didn't leave because of his alignment, he left because his character was written to be an evil bastard. If it were about alignment, he wouldn't care about your actions, he'd stay with you provided you had a matching alignment.

The very fact that evil characters can join a good party or vice versa proves alignment isn't the problem and it's not the straightjacket you keep trying to make it out to be.

The problem here was that the reputation system ends up being treated as a karma system at times instead of having an actual per character influence meter or similar. It was laziness.

Funny how you not only can have proper balance fostering druids and lawful paladins in settings completely devoid of alignment system but also have them be much more meaningful and distinctive in terms of adopted stance due to not being forced through 3x3 cheese-grater.

A rose by any other name. If it acts like true neutral, walks like true neutral and talks like true neutral, it is true neutral - dreaded 3x3 grid or not.

Again, if I were being charitable, I'd think you couldn't read since you clearly don't understand alignment or what it means and think true neutral characters can't be nuanced even though I've linked you multiple source materials that show just the opposite.

http://dark-wolf.weebly.com/add-2---druids-guide.html

But while their intentions are neutral, the methods of Shadow Circle members tend to promote chaos and evil. They behave as they do not due to an evil nature--their enemies include powerful evil empires as well as good kingdoms. Rather, they feel their cruel activities work toward the best interests of evolution and of Nature itself. For instance, the Shadow Circle may provide magical assistance to barbarian hordes trying to sack a city or lead humanoid tribes in raids against human or dwarven towns.

The only one at fault for your interpretation of the alignment system as some cookie cutter mold you're forced into is you.

And again, I don't think that's a lack of understanding, I think that's you wanting to be the leader of every guild in Oblivion and not wanting something or someone to say "hey, why is a lawful good paladin the leader of the assassin's guild?".

There is funny thing about being low INT that you might not be aware of despite it being pertinent to your situation - you're not exactly great at reaching the right conclusions.

Thanks for explaining the benefits of your mental state to me, Dunning-Kruger.

Removing. A. Massive. Simplification. Is. Dumbing. Down. What.

Except it isn't a simplification, it's a definition. There's a difference.

Again, simply reading the material I or Zed Duke of Banville are posting would easily explain that, but it's either past your character limit or else you purposely ignore it because you know it would make your argument crumble.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Ok, to anyone willing to defend D&D alignment system specifically (who also isn't a drooling retard, I think we can already thank those for their relentless participation):

How the hell do you want to have a meaningful conflict if one side effectively comes pre-labelled as wrong?
Unless of course you want to argue that evil is just as good option as good, but stacking absolutism and relativism this way is doublethink of so epic proportions that I feel the need to lie down just trying to think of it.

Now, doing away with or replacing good-evil axis with something less pre-valued like selfless-selfish helps in this regard (and gets rid of awkward disparities between usual solitary animal selfishness and malevolent selfishness), but it leads directly to second question:

What, apart from shitty metagame based on shitty metadata (alignment targetting mechanics, basically) does alignment bring into game that is valuable and not replicable by better means?

Dragon Magazine #101 (September 1985) ran an article by Paul Suttie titled "For king and country: An alignment system based on cause on effect" in which the author adopted moral relativism to denounce good and evil as "invented concepts", offering, as a substitute for Gygaxian alignment, allegiance to political or religious entities:

Spoiler

Suttie, however, failed to realize that the conflicts he envisages occurring in his alignment-less system are already (more or less) entirely possible within the two-axis nine-alignment system that describes personal ethos underlying the behavior of individuals. Indeed, Gygax had explicitly stated in the Dungeon Masters Guide that common alignment would not preclude warfare between nations or tribes. By removing alignment, Suttie is left with factional strife in which everyone acts in a purely utilitarian, or even Machiavellian, manner to further their individual or collective goals, without philosophical differentiation.