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

[Desiderius]

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.

You are correct. Very primitive.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

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.

Wrong and you kinda prove my point Robin Hood is used as Chaotic Good example in the third edition manuals. I agree redemption is an interesting concept however again allingment screws up things i seen countless of time Paladins losing powers because what they deemed right wad not interpreted by a DM that were failing to understand the motivation of the character claiming simply: You can't do that!!!! And even there the basic concept of allingment in D&D are actually badly written so badly written that they had to do a manual dedicated on what is evil to expand the concept later on.

Allingment are only born to be schematic and make some spells tied with them work. Like for example Detect Evil,Protection vs Good/Evil. Mostly those spells were used as tool to Meta. THat kills interpretation and narration.

I seen so many times Paladins abusing the detect evil spell in their first interaction with an individual.

Again allignment used to define planes are good and planars are not exactly mortals they are influenced by the plane they come from so they can perfectly fall in the stereotype.

But used on adventurers make them puppet with not originality and interesting tracts.

No wonder when they created Planescape they basically put less effort on allingment when defining the factions.

And this make that setting so much more engaging and absolutely thrilling to play if you are in to a faction.

 

[Larianshill]

You are correct. Very primitive.

Oh, that's what you're getting at. It's what the situation camed down to. This session was a culmination of a whole series of morally questionable decisions by the paladin - some of which were defensible, others - not so much, but he seemed to be going through some sort of a redemption arc, where he claimed that he's learning from his mistakes. This was not even meant to be a dilemma - it was meant to be an opportunity for him to look good, and show how much he's grown as a character. Instead, that happened.
The reason I told this story to begin with, is because the paladin's actions were pretty in line with what situations call for Dark Powers checks Victor mentioned. Same level of wanton disregard for morality.

 

[Desiderius]

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.

But what if someone knocked out the DM with a folding chair?

 

[Sarathiour]

You are correct. Very primitive.

It's because it's not a dilemma :

dilemma :A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or unsatisfactory.

I seen so many times Paladins abusing the detect evil spell in their first interaction with an individual.

I refuse to hear this retarded argument once more.

 

[Desiderius]

Yes, that’s why it’s primitive. You jerked him around and he jerked back. Y’all should just get a room.

 

[Larianshill]

Behold, the level of "argumentation" an alignmentfag descends to in the end.

 

[Mebrilia the Viera Queen]

You are correct. Very primitive.

It's because it's not a dilemma :

dilemma :A situation that requires a choice between options that are or seem equally unfavorable or unsatisfactory.

I seen so many times Paladins abusing the detect evil spell in their first interaction with an individual.

I refuse to hear this retarded argument once more.

Sorry but that's the plain truth. Even paladins in this edition are far more interesting.

 

[Sarathiour]

Sorry but that's the plain truth. Even paladins in this edition are far more interesting.

Just read the damn thread that njcclaw NJClaw linked earlier instead of spouting nonsense.

edited

 

[The_Mask]

No wonder when they created Planescape they basically put less effort on allingment when defining the factions.

-_-

 

[Kaivokz]

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.

Murder is always an evil act even if done for the greater good and with honorable intentions.

If all you have are bad choices, that doesn’t mean every aspect of one of them somehow gets promoted to good on account of being the best choice available to you. wrt. murder the Good would be defending your family or home, protecting an innocent, etc. If your only choice is to kill someone or let your family come to grievous harm, then what justifies the action is the Good of defending your family. The act of killing another human is still evil.

Phrases like “the greater good” do not even make logical sense if the act itself (murder) is simply a good one, for then there would be no need to appeal to a greater good.

 

[NJClaw]

Sorry but that's the plain truth. Even paladins in this edition are far more interesting.

Just read the damn thread that njcclaw linked earlier instead of spouting nonsense.

Misspelling the name of a fellow codexer is an evil act. First you candidly admit that you work for a living (yikes), and now this. You're very close to the third and final strike.

 

[Anonona]

I have a genuine question about a certain situation that had come to my mind. No even trying to argue against or in favor of alignments, I'm really curious to know your opinions if you wouldn't mind indulging me:

Let say you are playing as a good character. The existence of a certain man is a threat to many lives. The man himself hasn't done anything wrong per se, but for certain reasons his life could lead to numerous deaths down the line (it could be that he is a important political figure in the center of a succession conflict, or that he holds a dangerous power that could go out of control one day without any specific reason). Because of the situation you are in, you choices would be to kill the man, even if it makes you a murderer and leaves you a psychological scar, to avoid future deaths, or try and secure the man and hope the worse never comes to happen.

How would each decision be classified in the Alignment axis? In a way I can see killing the man as a Good action, as you do it to save lives, and the emotional trauma of the act can be itself a sort of sacrifice, as well as the possibility of being labeled a criminal and being persecuted. But it may also be Neutral or Evil if you think that it was technically the easy way out, instead of fighting to save the live of a innocent man while taking responsibilities for whatever may happen.

Or perhaps would the two be Good acts, but one would be Lawful and the other Chaotic? And if so, which one would be which?

 

[Yosharian]

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.

It doesn't because literally the example I provided is not verboten under any of those oaths

Paladin: "So as long as I don't lie, I can animate as many dead corpses as I want and we cool?"
Me, the DM: "Well yes but no"

 

[Desiderius]

I have a genuine question about a certain situation that had come to my mind. No even trying to argue against or in favor of alignments, I'm really curious to know your opinions if you wouldn't mind indulging me:

Let say you are playing as a good character. The existence of a certain man is a threat to many lives. The man himself hasn't done anything wrong per se, but for certain reasons his life could lead to numerous deaths down the line (it could be that he is a important political figure in the center of a succession conflict, or that he holds a dangerous power that could go out of control one day without any specific reason). Because of the situation you are in, you choices would be to kill the man, even if it makes you a murderer and leaves you a psychological scar, to avoid future deaths, or try and secure the man and hope the worse never comes to happen.

How would each decision be classified in the Alignment axis? In a way I can see killing the man as a Good action, as you do it to save lives, and the emotional trauma of the act can be itself a sort of sacrifice, as well as the possibility of being labeled a criminal and being persecuted. But it may also be Neutral or Evil if you think that it was technically the easy way out, instead of fighting to save the live of a innocent man while taking responsibilities for whatever may happen.

Or perhaps would the two be Good acts, but one would be Lawful and the other Chaotic? And if so, which one would be which?

You’re not omniscient, especially regarding the future. If the One who is hasn’t killed him what justification could you have?

 

[Larianshill]

It doesn't because literally the example I provided is not verboten under any of those oaths

Of course it is. It's right there, under Duty. "Be responsible for your actions and their consequences". There's Honor too, but it's the lesser of the two in these circumstances.

 

[RPK]

I have a genuine question about a certain situation that had come to my mind. No even trying to argue against or in favor of alignments, I'm really curious to know your opinions if you wouldn't mind indulging me:

Let say you are playing as a good character. The existence of a certain man is a threat to many lives. The man himself hasn't done anything wrong per se, but for certain reasons his life could lead to numerous deaths down the line (it could be that he is a important political figure in the center of a succession conflict, or that he holds a dangerous power that could go out of control one day without any specific reason). Because of the situation you are in, you choices would be to kill the man, even if it makes you a murderer and leaves you a psychological scar, to avoid future deaths, or try and secure the man and hope the worse never comes to happen.

How would each decision be classified in the Alignment axis? In a way I can see killing the man as a Good action, as you do it to save lives, and the emotional trauma of the act can be itself a sort of sacrifice, as well as the possibility of being labeled a criminal and being persecuted. But it may also be Neutral or Evil if you think that it was technically the easy way out, instead of fighting to save the live of a innocent man while taking responsibilities for whatever may happen.

Or perhaps would the two be Good acts, but one would be Lawful and the other Chaotic? And if so, which one would be which?

you should read The Dead Zone by Stephen King

 

[Yosharian]

It doesn't because literally the example I provided is not verboten under any of those oaths

Of course it is. It's right there, under Duty. "Be responsible for your actions and their consequences". There's Honor too, but it's the lesser of the two in these circumstances.

You must be joking.

 

[Larianshill]

I'm dead serious.

 

[Reinhardt]

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.

Just because alignment means nothing in BG3 it doesn't mean it can't be useful. Solasta uses alignment to determine how your characters act. It's not perfect, obviously, but I would say it's the step in the right direction. Also, alignment is useful for some spells (Protect vs Evil & Good spell, for example).

LoL fake news,solasta doesn't have alignment but traits like greedy or kind and such.

Looks like you've missed forest behind trees.

Caution is evil? Like relaxing around some racesancestries?

 

[Alienman]

Maybe something to do with not taking risk saving your fellow man in a dicey situation?

 

[fork]

No. Caution = critical thinking = bad/evil.

 

[Larianshill]

I'm gonna be honest, tying those tags to the alignment feels really tacked on. There were no hints that they somehow related to the alignment even in the latest EA release, tags were just listed in order - so this shit was added together with the pronouns.
Which reinforces my point about alignment being unnecessary. Is "violence [evil]" better than "violence", if no substance beneath the name is changed?

 

[Yosharian]

I have a genuine question about a certain situation that had come to my mind. No even trying to argue against or in favor of alignments, I'm really curious to know your opinions if you wouldn't mind indulging me:

Let say you are playing as a good character. The existence of a certain man is a threat to many lives. The man himself hasn't done anything wrong per se, but for certain reasons his life could lead to numerous deaths down the line (it could be that he is a important political figure in the center of a succession conflict, or that he holds a dangerous power that could go out of control one day without any specific reason). Because of the situation you are in, you choices would be to kill the man, even if it makes you a murderer and leaves you a psychological scar, to avoid future deaths, or try and secure the man and hope the worse never comes to happen.

How would each decision be classified in the Alignment axis? In a way I can see killing the man as a Good action, as you do it to save lives, and the emotional trauma of the act can be itself a sort of sacrifice, as well as the possibility of being labeled a criminal and being persecuted. But it may also be Neutral or Evil if you think that it was technically the easy way out, instead of fighting to save the live of a innocent man while taking responsibilities for whatever may happen.

Or perhaps would the two be Good acts, but one would be Lawful and the other Chaotic? And if so, which one would be which?

My interpretation:

Good is simply performing actions which benefit the majority of people, especially if it involves self-sacrifice. Neutral is principally self-interest, either personal or for one's tribe. Evil is sadism/cruelty.

Killing another person isn't an inherently evil act in my opinion because there could be good reason to do it - it depends on the intent and motivation. In this case the morality is grey but in general I don't think killing = automatically evil.

Lawful is having a reasoned, logical, purposeful approach. Chaos is acting on impulse, emotion, passion, what feels good or right. And then there are those who strive to find a balance between the two.

Choice A, to kill the man to prevent those future deaths, assuming those deaths would be the deaths of innocents:

Killing one man to save all those people could be viewed as a Good act because it benefits the majority, but the man is currently innocent so it is a grey area. As a result I would say it's more Neutral than Good, but I would give leeway depending on the player's stated intent.

It's a Lawful act because it is a reasoned, logical argument - killing him will save innocent lives. Preventing him from being killed because it feels wrong to take one person's life to save another, is definitely Chaotic. The logic on this is clear - one person's life is worth nothing compared to hundreds or thousands of lives.

However the waters are muddied somewhat if the one person is innocent and the others are not, or vice versa

 

[Yosharian]

For example in the movie Taken, Liam Neeson goes on a killing spree to save his daughter. The goons he kills are involved in the trafficking of young women for the purposes of selling them as sex slaves, prostitution, etc. Not a single one of these goons is innocent, they all deserve death for what they've done (Lawful). But his actions are principally taken to save his daughter, rather than to save all those other women (Neutral, not Good). When he tortures that fellow to find the location of his daughter, he's walking a pretty fucking thin line, but it's justified - just about - because this guy is an evil cunt and he's unwilling to give up the information. It's not until he leaves the guy to be tortured until the electricity runs out, for no other reason than he hates him, that Neeson performs a truly Evil act (It's also arguably Chaotic). But overall his actions that day are Lawful Neutral.