Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Early Access Thread [GAME RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Yosharian]

Codex will be unable to name a single thing that alignments actually contributed other than endless arguments on the internet about what is right and wrong, what is lawful, what is good and so on, and so forth.

Alignment is a useful tool to ensure consistency in player actions (while keeping in mind that intent is important).

If my Paladin decides to start going around animating corpses and using them to fight for him, I can explain to him that that act is considered evil in my setting and thus he shouldn't do it if he wants to keep his powers (which are granted to him by a Lawful Good god). Of course if he wants to go rogue, that's fine - it's his choice.

There is some merit in arguing for alignments to be flexible - they can be too strict sometimes, and using them as a tool to force players to act how you want them to act isn't good for the game.

But acting like alignment is utterly useless and it's never had a purpose in the game is ridiculous.

 

[Yosharian]

First of all, fuck you for bumping this thread on my alert.

Also, i'm not a native English speaker, so my phrasing was probably clumsy, but it rest my case. For example, killing anyone suspected of being a demonic cultist is an evil act by itself, but might be a necessary decision.

That's not an evil act, hell it might not even be a chaotic one, if the intent is to save lives and there's no other choice.

Killing = wrong is just one particular point of view, and it should be able to live next to other points of view in the same alignment box.

 

[NJClaw]

For example, killing anyone suspected of being a demonic cultist is an evil act by itself, but might be a necessary decision.

But that's not a defense of alignments, that's the exact reason why alignments can work in a videogame adaptation only if loosely implemented without any real consequence.

It's impossible to describe the complexity of human nature simply by combining two sets of three different words each, so in PnP alignments are almost always used only as loose guidelines. The only way to use alignments in the same way in a videogame is to confine their effects to a bunch of restrictions on items and spells because whenever a developer tries to use them to gate decisions and actions the entire system shows its cracks and falls apart.

 

[Sarathiour]

It's impossible to describe the complexity of human nature simply by combining two sets of three different words each, so in PnP alignments are almost always used only as loose guidelines. The only way to use alignments in the same way in a videogame is to confine their effects to a bunch of restrictions on items and spells because whenever a developer tries to use them to gate decisions and actions the entire system shows its cracks and falls apart.

It's because gating every decision behind alignement restriction is retarded. Alignement is a guideline, not something that should autisticly be followed. A good character can act evil time to time, and the opposite is also true. Is should nevertheless matter for magic item, or important decision.

 

[Sarathiour]

Killing = wrong is just one particular point of view, and it should be able to live next to other points of view in the same alignment box.

Yes, you should determine the moral rule of a setting beforehand. Also i said :

killing anyone suspected

so no trial or proof whatsoever, which make it a pragmatic evil act.

 

[Yosharian]

killing anyone suspected

so no trial or proof whatsoever, which make it a pragmatic evil act.

Ah yes I suppose so

 

[Storyfag]

killing anyone suspected

so no trial or proof whatsoever, which make it a pragmatic evil act.

Even funnier that Solasta seems to conflate pragmatism with "good"

 

[Larianshill]

Alignment is a useful tool to ensure consistency in player actions (while keeping in mind that intent is important).

If my Paladin decides to start going around animating corpses and using them to fight for him, I can explain to him that that act is considered evil in my setting and thus he shouldn't do it if he wants to keep his powers (which are granted to him by a Lawful Good god). Of course if he wants to go rogue, that's fine - it's his choice.

But you can do it without alignment just as well. Even when referring specifically to paladins, here's how 3.5 handles it.

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.
Additionally, a paladin’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

What the fuck is an "evil act"? What is "willingly"? Cue to endless speculations about what is right and what is wrong, if committing an evil act under duress counts, "what about hostage situations", and so on. Nevermind the endless "I was tricked into doing evil, and DM took my class features forever" situations that used to crop up all the goddamn time.
Book of Exalted Deeds and Book of Vile Darkness did not help, not even a little, because both answer the question "what is an evil act", and their answer is so nonsensical and removed from humanity, it becomes nearly impossible to play paladin.

Meanwhile, 5e's version of the default paladin lacks any alignment restrictions, but somehow achieves the same thing without all the mess inherent to the alignments.

Though the exact words and strictures of the Oath of Devotion vary, paladins of this oath share these tenets.

Honesty.
Don't lie or cheat. Let your word be your promise.

Courage.
Never fear to act, though caution is wise.

Compassion.
Aid others, protect the weak, and punish those who threaten them. Show mercy to your foes, but temper it with wisdom.

Honor.
Treat others with fairness, and let your honorable deeds be an example to them. Do as much good as possible while causing the least amount of harm.

Duty.
Be responsible for your actions and their consequences, protect those entrusted to your care, and obey those who have just authority over you.

There is some room for interpretation here, but I think everyone will agree that if a character follows these tenets, the end result is what is commonly thought to be a lawful good character.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

Allignment had a fair ammount of problems Wotc was aware of that and given it less importance. Character consistency is always something to take in account however Allignments were did in such a way that were prone to create stereotypes or schematic characters. An individual is a complex being that cannot be reduced in to 9 word on a page.

Dm: You encounter the man that was responsable to kill your family.
Paladin: Well that's it i attack him to take my revenge.
DM: You can't do that you are lawful good you will upset also your divinity.

Those cases were such common and such a common complain that wotc had to snap the allignment system and is a very positive change that allows for more morally complex character. As for coherence a not coherent character will stay not coherent allingment or not. Really outside the planar sphere allingment were just a burden.

And there is a reason for that..

Planars creature are often bound to their plane of existance in such a way even how they act is shaped about it.

 

[Cryomancer]

will be unable to name a single thing that alignments actually contributed

Did you who DMed for over a decade played a campaign set on Abyss? Abyssal corruption making characters more chaotic evil is a pretty neat concept. Just like the Netherese humans who fled to shadowfell become more and more evil. A city which was chaotic neutral/true neutral in Faerun become neutral evil and chaotic evil.

On D&D multiverse, chaos X law, good X evil aren't mere concepts. Are forces.

5E Domains of Dread lacks rules for "corruption" and power check due lack of alignment.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

will be unable to name a single thing that alignments actually contributed

Did you who DMed for over a decade played a campaign set on Abyss? Abyssal corruption making characters more chaotic evil is a pretty neat concept. Just like the Netherese humans who fled to shadowfell become more and more evil. A city which was chaotic neutral/true neutral in Faerun become neutral evil and chaotic evil.

On D&D multiverse, chaos X law, good X evil aren't mere concepts. Are forces.

5E Domains of Dread lacks rules for "corruption" and power check due lack of alignment.

THere is still a form of corruption in the lower planes.

For example when elturel fallen to the Avernus many newborns ended to become tieflings.

 

[Desiderius]

It is a meaningless background picture

Sadly, but correctly, that's the state of alignment in 5E.

Most of the words are in the wrong places but this is a good first step in rescuing alignments from meaningless abstraction.

Much like SJW is a ham-handed first pass at escaping from the land of the Poz lotus-eaters.

 

[Desiderius]

Codex will be unable to name a single thing that alignments actually contributed other than endless arguments on the internet about what is right and wrong, what is lawful, what is good and so on, and so forth.

You named the thing yourself.

It is good.

You don’t want to see what the end looks like.

 

[Thonius]

Finally Allignment is no more a thing like in past.

What is the problem of alignment? Law X Chaos, Good X Evil are interesting on D&D cuz they aren't mere "ideas", they are cosmic forces, living your entire life in Limbo or in Mechanus would change completely not only your mind and appearance, but your soul too. The humans on Thultanthar become shades after many decades there. And also, alingments doesn't force your character into a specific mindset. For example, a chaotic neutral character can be a barbarian in his barbarian tribe hating civilization, can be a very individualistic and anarchyst wizard on his tower, a complete random person(...) Robin Hood could be considered Chaotic Neutral.

Many modules who happens in abyss had rules for abyssal corruption, shifting the PC's alignment to chaotic evil and many spell, effects, magical items, etc; had alignment based conditions, restrictions or usage. Those who played older editions, knows that protection from evil is a must have spell, if you don't have a cleric casting it in your party, you can get hit by negative levels.

Reddit retards could not grasp LG concept because of political/ideological reasons? Mmm?

I play all edition of D&D i have to say something about the 5th edition.

Finally Allignment is no more a thing like in past. Heck is the perfect tool to create frigging FLAT characters.

Allignment is good when use in the planes. But not outside of it the removal of importance of it allows the development of more grey characters.

"I want to be able to role-play a character with no consistent traits or personality at all, and now I can finally do that with no repercussions"

More like I would like to RP as myself - no principles, no codex, muffin just a hole in spirit of current times.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

It is a meaningless background picture

Sadly, but correctly, that's the state of alignment in 5E.

Most of the words are in the wrong places but this is a good first step in rescuing alignments from meaningless abstraction.

Much like SJW is a ham-handed first pass at escaping from the land of the Poz lotus-eaters.

Many of you also forget that even in the third edition manuals allingment was meant to be considered like a guide a DM and player would look in order to shape a character. The only difference is that the third edition was bound to enforce allignment in such a way that in the end if you wanted to keep your allignment you were bound to become a sterotype.

in 5th edition outside the planar sphere allignment is no more that important and this is perfectly fine. As you are now free to create characters that have complex traits and morality. Characters that are more close to be individuals rather than puppets.

 

[Thonius]

killing anyone suspected

so no trial or proof whatsoever, which make it a pragmatic evil act.

Even funnier that Solasta seems to conflate pragmatism with "good"

Pretty sure all tags on the middle are neutral. so 2 for good 2 for evil 2 chaos 2 neutral/neutral. DuH

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

In the end i used the allingment system too when i were doing a planar adventurer but outside of it?
I always seen that as a burden not to mention many DM have no the slightest clue what truly are the allingments you can ask that to many Dungeon Masters and they will repeat 1 by 1 the words of the manual however if you will ask them to describe the allingment on their own word they will end to have a totally different interpretation one from another.

Again allingment is one of those idea that works well on paper but in pratice is more problematic than anything else.

 

[Larianshill]

On D&D multiverse, chaos X law, good X evil aren't mere concepts. Are forces.

You're talking about it as if it is a good thing.

5E Domains of Dread lacks rules for "corruption" and power check due lack of alignment.

Do they need it? Just to tell you a story, one time a paladin in my recent campaign (a very remarkable player, I won't ever allow him to play paladin again) decided to burn down a mansion. In that mansion, there was hiding a vampire and his minions - but also innocent people, whom he charmed into staying there, in order to prevent the exact thing the paladin intended to do. The rest of the party - from the amoral wizard to the barbarian - all agreed that the right thing to do was to enter the mansion, and clear it it of monsters the old-fashioned way, but the paladin insisted on burning it down. When the barbarian brought up the charmed innocents, including children, the paladin replied that those were "acceptable casualties". I made him fall on that exact spot*, and he attracted attention of devils, who were very interested in someone as morally flexible as him. None of that needed an alignment or a corruption table.

Spoiler

* - This is actually a lie. In my setting, paladins are made by gods - and only a god can revoke the paladin's power. Because this particular paladin's god (god of justice) is dead, the paladin could decapitate children and still keep his powers. It was a major twist and a plot point, and a motivation of one villain, a player-favourite. But what he did lose is my homebrew version of the Holy Avenger. The sword decided that this was the last straw in a whole series of morally questionable judgements, rejected him for good and never allowed the paladin to wield it again. Eventually, the barbarian would become its new wielder, because the barbarian acted honorably and justly the whole campaign, to the point of never once telling a lie.

 

[Cryomancer]

For example when elturel fallen to the Avernus many newborns ended to become tieflings.

Yep. But still nothing like 2E domains of dread corruption... Mere casting a necromantic spell could attract the attention of evil powers. Even if it is with good intentions, because you are using teh energy of lower plane, even if it is to make a undead stop slathering innocents. Using a wail of the banshee in a evil way had like almost 20% of chances of corrupting your character (18% as a 9th tier necromancy + murder which has a chance of corruption randing from 2% to 10% and certainly)

There was thirteen steeps towards the corruption of a dark lord and the DM is encouraged to make the PC into a NPC and random select "changes" or changes which makes sense for the PC.

allignment you were bound to become a sterotype.

I disagree. Pick Chaotic Neutral characters. It can encompass a lot of characters from a lot of media. From Robin Hood to Joker and even Yusuke from YYH.

"I was tricked into doing evil, and DM took my class features forever"

Redemption could be a interesting character arc. If the DM takes the power and refuses to allow any way to get it back, is a problem of the DM being a problem, not of the alignment being a problem.

 

[Larianshill]

Redemption could be a interesting character arc.

By RAW, redemption is possible only for a paladin who committed a Chaotic act, not an Evil act.

 

[Thonius]

What do you mean No? It's clear as day.

On D&D multiverse, chaos X law, good X evil aren't mere concepts. Are forces.

You're talking about it as if it is a good thing.

5E Domains of Dread lacks rules for "corruption" and power check due lack of alignment.

Do they need it? Just to tell you a story, one time a paladin in my recent campaign (a very remarkable player, I won't ever allow him to play paladin again) decided to burn down a mansion. In that mansion, there was hiding a vampire and his minions - but also innocent people, whom he charmed into staying there, in order to prevent the exact thing the paladin intended to do. The rest of the party - from the amoral wizard to the barbarian - all agreed that the right thing to do was to enter the mansion, and clear it it of monsters the old-fashioned way, but the paladin insisted on burning it down. When the barbarian brought up the charmed innocents, including children, the paladin replied that those were "acceptable casualties". I made him fall on that exact spot*, and he attracted attention of devils, who were very interested in someone as morally flexible as him. None of that needed an alignment or a corruption table.

Spoiler

* - This is actually a lie. In my setting, paladins are made by gods - and only a god can revoke the paladin's power. Because this particular paladin's god (god of justice) is dead, the paladin could decapitate children and still keep his powers. It was a major twist and a plot point, and a motivation of one villain, a player-favourite. But what he did lose is my homebrew version of the Holy Avenger. The sword decided that this was the last straw in a whole series of morally questionable judgements, rejected him for good and never allowed the paladin to wield it again. Eventually, the barbarian would become its new wielder, because the barbarian acted honorably and justly the whole campaign, to the point of never once telling a lie.

Your wiz and barb are not evil then. Chaotic neutrals, at least they could've argue that loot I going to burn.

 

[Desiderius]

Problematic is problematic.

 

[Desiderius]

On D&D multiverse, chaos X law, good X evil aren't mere concepts. Are forces.

You're talking about it as if it is a good thing.

5E Domains of Dread lacks rules for "corruption" and power check due lack of alignment.

Do they need it? Just to tell you a story, one time a paladin in my recent campaign (a very remarkable player, I won't ever allow him to play paladin again) decided to burn down a mansion. In that mansion, there was hiding a vampire and his minions - but also innocent people, whom he charmed into staying there, in order to prevent the exact thing the paladin intended to do. The rest of the party - from the amoral wizard to the barbarian - all agreed that the right thing to do was to enter the mansion, and clear it it of monsters the old-fashioned way, but the paladin insisted on burning it down. When the barbarian brought up the charmed innocents, including children, the paladin replied that those were "acceptable casualties". I made him fall on that exact spot*, and he attracted attention of devils, who were very interested in someone as morally flexible as him. None of that needed an alignment or a corruption table.

Spoiler

* - This is actually a lie. In my setting, paladins are made by gods - and only a god can revoke the paladin's power. Because this particular paladin's god (god of justice) is dead, the paladin could decapitate children and still keep his powers. It was a major twist and a plot point, and a motivation of one villain, a player-favourite. But what he did lose is my homebrew version of the Holy Avenger. The sword decided that this was the last straw in a whole series of morally questionable judgements, rejected him for good and never allowed the paladin to wield it again. Eventually, the barbarian would become its new wielder, because the barbarian acted honorably and justly the whole campaign, to the point of never once telling a lie.

But what was the CR of the trolley car?

 

[Larianshill]

Are you trying to imply this was a trolley situation? It wasn't. The dilemma was very primitive - either the party fights the vampire, risking their lives like heroes are expected to, or they don't act like heroes, and burn down innocent people, because it doesn't require any risk from them personally. The paladin picked the second option.

 

[Sarathiour]

Nevermind the endless "I was tricked into doing evil, and DM took my class features forever" situations that used to crop up all the goddamn time.

D&D 2nd edition was crystal clear about that :
if you willingly commit an evil act, you fall from your status.
If you get tricked into committing one, you only loose them until you make an act of contrition proportional to your wrongdoing.