Dialog options determined by alignment

[Monolith]

Hey,

I'm thinking about a dialog system which is strongly influenced by the player character. I'm not talking about attributes and skills having an influence on dialog options - I take that for granted. What I think of is sort of an alignment system that takes track of choices the player made in the past and which determine the dialog options he'll have in the future.

Now, don't roll your eyes while thinking of BG and NWN. Be more imaginative. It's not a simple good - evil system I have in mind. Sure, good and evil are the borderlines of the system, but more extreme values rather than the only two choices you have.

Well, it's rather late now and I don't have the time to write down every aspect in detail, so I'll go with examples while hoping that you'll get the point. Btw, I'm not going to take attributes , skills, classes or vignettes into consideration because it would be too complex for a simple example, so don't criticize me for that.

Here we go:
The usual dialog system provides typical options for different alignments. Let's say, for example, there is a quest where the son of a farmer has gone missing. Both the farmer and his wife are old and weak and strongly depend on their son - he's a strong guy who has to do all the shitty work. The farmer asks you to help him find his son because without him, he and his wife wouldn't survive the winter. The dialog goes like this:

"Ohhhh adventurer, please, you must help me find little John! Me and my wife are too old to be working on the fields. And winter is coming!"

1. I'll help. And I'm going to work the fields for you until winter! *And* I'm going to cook for you, clean your stable and darn your socks!
2. I'd be glad to. Any idea why he left or where he might have gone? Friends? Did you have a quarrel of any sort?
3. I could help, I guess. I won't do it for free though. I'm desperately in need of some of the shiny stuff.
4. Sure, if it's worthwhile. Any daughter I should know of?
5. I don't have time for this, old man.
6. Well, well, so the both of you are all alone without the protection of your strong son? Don't fear winter, old man. If you don't pay tribute to the mighty me you won't see the next winter anyway.
7. Oh, so you're all alone and helpless? Now, why shouldn't I take your old wife to the backroom and rape the shit out of her? She might be old but ass is ass and I'm not picky. In the meanwhile you're allowed to watch while hanging from that meat hook over there.
8. Winter might be coming, old man, but death is closer. <attack>

So, we have 8 dialog options, each representing a certain alignment. When looking at the choices every sane person will think of somebody who responds with option 7 as a brutal, rutheless sicko. Now, is your character a brutal, rutheless sicko? If not, why providing option 7? Why not providing option 7 only when your character actually is what he needs to be to say something like that?

Before some of you go wild on me, look at it from this perspective:
Throughout the game you make choices. These choices determine what your character is like. Your character determines what choices he can make in the future.

You choose to go with low intelligence and low speech-skill? The consequence is that your character is stupid and has few dialog options. You choose to play a badass? The consequence is that your character actually is a badass.

The only problem I see is making this thing work. There has to be a scale taking track of your choices. Before every dialog this scale is checked and options are presented depending on that scale.

Here's how it could work while using the dialog from above:
Scale goes form 1 to 8 (kept very simple)
Scale: 7
Dialog options:

6. Well, well, so the both of you are all alone without the protection of your strong son? Don't fear winter, old man. If you don't pay tribute to the mighty me you won't see the next winter anyway. (scale value decreased)
7. Oh, so you're all alone and helpless? Now, why shouldn't I take your old wife to the backroom and rape the shit out of her? She might be old but ass is ass and I'm not picky. In the meanwhile you're allowed to watch while hanging from that meat hook over there. (scale value remains the same)
8. Winter might be coming, old man, but death is closer. <attack> (scale value increased)

The result would be sort of a dynamic linearity. It would be more realistic all in all and powergaming would be harder (player is forced to roleplay, best ways of solving a quest can be beyond reach for a certain character). Making the dialog would be easier because you'd have a template (although more dialog options would have to be writte in total).

Vignettes would determine the scale at the beginning of the game. Since then the player influences the scale by the choices he makes.

So, what do you think of it? Would you like if it's well done or is the concept so shitty that the quality of itself doesn't make a difference? Give me some feedback, please.

 

[Spazmo]

Okay, interesting notion, but I have some reservations about it. Most notably, once the game determines your alignment, won't you be stuck with that particular set of responses? If you are good or bad enough, mightn't that leave you with only one option in any given dialog (aside from "rumours?", "Grey Fox" and "bye"), making the game from then on a movie with occasional clicking?

Furthermore, I think it's questionable that the game should look at the player's actions thus far and assume what his reaction to a given situation will be. To reprise your example, you have a complete dick come upon this family as winter approaches. Your system has the game assume he's going to kill 'em all or something similarly grim and then maybe cackle. But what if the badass PC is worrying about the coming winter, too, and thinks this nice little homestead might be a nice place to find shelter from the snowstorms? A warm bed, good food and rest appeals to evil people, too.

In general, I don't think alignment should determine dialog choices. Really, it's the other way around.

Now, what'd be really interesting would be for the NPC's responses to be based on the PC's past actions (assuming he's heard anything about them). If the PC has a reputation as a good guy, then the farmer might ask for help in exchange for a place to sleep. If the PC is less good, the farmer might be more hesitant to dump his problems in the PC's lap. If the PC is outright evil, the farmer might greet the PC with a scythe in hand or just fall right to his knees and beg for mercy. What the PC does next ought to be up to the player, and not to the game's algorithm that determines how much of a dick the player is.

 

[Volourn]

Spazy wins. Alignment shouldn't be used as a straitjacket. It's not hardcoded. People can 'fall to evil' or 'reform to good'. Actions should always be the detrmining factor of alignment; not the other way around.

Still, depending on the specifc gaming world, you could get away with such a hardbutt system; but I dunno...

 

[galsiah]

I think it'd be an uphill struggle to get something like this working.

One of the largest problems is the other part of conventional alignment you don't mention - i.e. law vs. chaos. At the moment your system might work reasonably for fairly lawful (i.e. predictable) characters, but what about chaotic ones?
Chaotic characters might insult / attack someone just because they feel like it. Equally, they might be unusually kind to someone just for a laugh.

To represent a chaotic alignment in your system you'd probably need to randomize the responses offered. That'd be rather odd, and would constrain the player to be chaotic in the way the game randomly decided he should be.

Another problem is what to do with complex environments where there is no clear nice / nasty approach. Mercilessly killing someone might be considered good or evil entirely dependent on a character's point of view / loyalties.

You could keep a complex record of various different factions / idiologies, and a character's attitude towards them, then deduce that being nice to faction X amounts to being nasty to faction Y. So if a character thinks faction X are the good guys (so acts for them and against Y), he'll get good options with faction X, and "evil" ones with faction Y.

Now suppose the character finds information which sets the X vs Y situation in a new light - the information seems to imply that Y is in the right after all. In this situation a character should be free to change his reaction to each faction instantly and drastically - however, he shouldn't be forced to do so. How do you handle this? Does the character suddenly get the entire range of options the next time he talks to an X or Y member?

Also, consider that there may be tens or hundreds of pieces of game information which could be the final straw for an individual character. It's impossible to know as a designer (if the plot is subtle) exactly when a player will switch to thinking that Y is right.

Enforcing dialogue option ranges on a per faction basis would prevent the player from ever changing his view of a faction quickly. I can't see how that would work.

 

[mathboy]

I think that your idea leads to less playing and more being forced to play one of the roles the designers wanted. It isn't really a bad idea, I have though of something similar some times, but the main downside - which I think can be shown through your example is the scaling of the responses, if it doesn't say, in front of (or after) the dialogue options what it does, then how is the player going to know that

8. Winter might be coming, old man, but death is closer. <attack>

is more evil than

7. Oh, so you're all alone and helpless? Now, why shouldn't I take your old wife to the backroom and rape the shit out of her? She might be old but ass is ass and I'm not picky. In the meanwhile you're allowed to watch while hanging from that meat hook over there. (scale value remains the same)

, which I think is a lot sicker. And even if it said what it would do to the character, what about when the PC doesn't agree with the consequenses? For example

3. I could help, I guess. I won't do it for free though. I'm desperately in need of some of the shiny stuff.

4. Sure, if it's worthwhile. Any daughter I should know of?

5. I don't have time for this, old man.

seems hard to grade universally.

Also, the more things you scale, to make the options true to the type of character played, the less dialogue options for the character which means less game and isn't very good.

No, I agree with Spazmo, let actions affect NPC's.

 

[Zomg]

VtM:B did this a bit. Many of the conversations are altered by having a high or low humanity score, which is alignment plus a few game mechanics. For a good example, go through the Tin Can Bill dialog (part of the Plaguebearer quests in the downtown hub) using the console to give either a very high or a very low humanity. At the end of the conversation, TCB dies - a high humanity character responds with something like, "Poor Bill. Rest in Peace." Low humanity characters find it funny.

On Spazmo's point, something that always annoys me about reputation systems is that they don't handle identification very well. Even High Lord Babymurder should be able to put on rags and rub some shit on his face and pass as a nobody, and in fact to have an autonomous identity as a different guy, at least locally.

Edit - Also, this has come up before. One of the salient points is that many things that are going to be out of character in terms of roleplaying are a good idea from a gamist point of view. Why would anyone turn down a quest entirely in a standard format RPG from a gamist point of view? It's more things to kill, more content to see, more puzzles to solve, more loot, more everything. But from the roleplaying side, why would Mr. Babymurder help out a nobody? There are nontraditional design strategies that can theoretically attenuate that effect, like imposing severe opportunity costs for spent time, or dynamic worlds, but having your options adapt to your character is probably the easiest modification to the kind of dialog RPGs that I've always liked to get around the RP vs. G friction.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I think Arcanum did this in some parts, as it depended upon your alignment and such.

 

[Spazmo]

VtM:B did this a bit. Many of the conversations are altered by having a high or low humanity score, which is alignment plus a few game mechanics. For a good example, go through the Tin Can Bill dialog (part of the Plaguebearer quests in the downtown hub) using the console to give either a very high or a very low humanity. At the end of the conversation, TCB dies - a high humanity character responds with something like, "Poor Bill. Rest in Peace." Low humanity characters find it funny.

That's different, I think. There, the game decides your reaction based on your humanity rather than generating a particular set of options. The real difference, though, is that your character's reaction to Bill's death doesn't actually matter in game terms. Still, I don't care for it much, and having a generic neutral response would be best, which is also a general principle for dialog, I think. Admittedly, it makes the PC's dialog more or less bland and basically restricts any particularly memorable lines to NPCs, but that's just tough.

Even High Lord Babymurder should be able to put on rags and rub some shit on his face and pass as a nobody, and in fact to have an autonomous identity as a different guy, at least locally.

Ooh, I like that. I'd been wondering for a little while how to intelligently implement a disguise skill in a CRPG.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Isn't VD doing that in his game?

 

[Atrokkus]

I think alignment should not exist at all. What matters is a proper reaction of an npc to you and your actions. Your actions, including dialog options of course, should make people approve of your ways or disapprove of them, using numeric values for each npc or npc group. That's the realistic way, unlike the exaggerated alignment railroading.

Dialog options should be restricted only by skills and mental abilities. I'm pretty sure that every character, no matter how he was played before, should have the full assortment of dialog options -- that is, the fullest his/her abilities/skills can allow.

remember: it's up to the player to roleplay. "Alignments" should not be forced upon the player/PC. He should not follow the set alignment, because that's just unrealsitic. However, the reputation may actually force PC to carry on his atrocities: for example, if he's been imprisoned for his ill deeds, he might actually become even more agitated and vengeful, instead of choosing the "right" path.

Consider this: Being a merciless motherfucker, PC decides to pretend that he helps, play the goody-two-shoe role for awhile, only to betray the oldtimers the worst way possible later. That's a perfect roleplaying route and blocking it is just foolish.

 

[Slylandro]

I agree with the rest-- nice notion but it's better in theory than in practice. It's quite possible for a character to have selective vices-- eg a perfectly normal rational, even virtuous person who, say, has a problem controlling his lusts. Maybe his first instinct is to help the farmer, but upon seeing the daughter, can't help but "fall" to his base desires. But based on his previous holier-than-thou decisions in the game, presumably the evil options would be kept from him in an overly black/white view of alignment.

 

[Monolith]

Thanks for your responses. I got your point, I think. Freedom of choice > consequences.

I can't respond to everything you pointed out but I'll try as best as I can.

@Spazmo
The system should make sure that changing alignment should be always possible - but slowly and naturally (or rapidly if reasonable). Having just one dialog option to choose from is badly written dialog (imo in any case). Taking factions, skills, attributes and past actions into consideration is just as necessary. Your example of an evil PC's reaction toward this winter business isn't a fault in the system neither, but once again more an error in the dialog I wrote. I once again want to point out that the dialog from above is the most simple way of applying such a system to a game. A well written dialog using that system should give you the possibility to cun, to lie and to be a hypocrite. Plus the dialog choices shouldn't be so "obvious" in terms of alignment.

@galsiah
Yes, integrating the notion of chaos and law into such a system definitely is a pain in the ass. Either one chooses to make the scale two dimensional with another scale taking track of the lawful or chaotic choices...but that would be load of work I wouldn't like to do...or one can apply it to the good - evil scale in a way I'm not sure about yet. The more evil you are, the more chaotic choices you get?

@mathboy
Well, actually you're just forced to play as you yourself decided how you want to play. You'll have the ability to change alignment and therefore you're not totally stuck to a predefined path. Anyway, most of your criticism is against my dialog and how the system is implemented rather than against the system as such.

@metallix
The player won't know anything about an alignment or a scale - I guess I forgot to mention that. He'll have choices depending on the alignment scale (which is nothing more than game mechanics). So, a character who's entirely evil will nonetheless end up with say...at least three choices in every dialog which can have a significant effect on his reputation - and on his alignment.

"Consider this: Being a merciless motherfucker, PC decides to pretend that he helps, play the goody-two-shoe role for awhile, only to betray the oldtimers the worst way possible later. That's a perfect roleplaying route and blocking it is just foolish."

I considered that, I just didn't take it into account when writing that dialog. It strongly depends on the writer up to what an extent the system should be used.
----------------

But like I said, I got your point. I'm still of the opinion that this system can enhance roleplaying if it's well implemented though. But that's the difficult part, isn't it? Using that system in a RPG like Prelude to Darkness or VD's game...well...you'll end up writing dialog for years I guess. But using that in a NWN mod of three hours to assure replayability and roleplaying?

 

[Mefi]

ToEE checks for alignment. Quite often actually if you go into the dialogue files.

But it can cause a lot of problems like others have said as ToEE doesn't allow for alignment changes once the game has begun.

If you want the system to work well, you have to allow a way to change alignments during game-play. And as you say you're planning to do that, it could work well for you.

 

[Monolith]

ToEE checks for alignment. Quite often actually if you go into the dialogue files.

But it can cause a lot of problems like others have said as ToEE doesn't allow for alignment changes once the game has begun.

If you want the system to work well, you have to allow a way to change alignments during game-play. And as you say you're planning to do that, it could work well for you.

Perhaps I should give ToEE a try then. I never got around to buying it as it's said to be buggy as hell (at least that's what I heard from various sources).

 

[Mefi]

Perhaps I should give ToEE a try then. I never got around to buying it as it's said to be buggy as hell (at least that's what I heard from various sources).

It is. Patch it using the instructions and mods from www.co8.org That solves many of the bugs (although a lot remain which need .dll hacking). Oh and don't buy the download version as it doesn't seem to accept new patches - get the mucho cheapness version from a bargain bin.

There's a decompiler to get into the scripts which haven't already been decompiled and modded there too. The dialogue works because almost anything can be checked for (alignment, class, stat, skill, item possessed, flags etc etc). It's a fantastic thing to play with for modders with the time.

 

[LlamaGod]

Alignment should provide dialog options, not determine them - thats what I think.

You should be the one to indicate your alignment.

 

[Limorkil]

Good idea. Some people think that your choices should influence your alignment, others that your alignment should influence your options. I think that as long as you avoid trying to do both you will be okay. One problem with alignment influences choices is that it makes it hard to change your alignment during the game. I have played characters that have moved alignment through the game. I never set out thinking "I want to play someone good who becomes evil", it just happens because of the options presented. A good example was Kotor, where my character started out Dark Side but ended up neutral because she wanted to destroy the Star Forge not use it, and she couldn't bring herself to sacrifice her friends (except Mission, little bitch).

You can still allow alignment shifts by not making the dialogue choices totally rigid. You allow 'borderline' choices and if the player keeps picking those the character shifts more in that direction.

I believe your idea is totally workable. The way I would do it would be:
1. Classify each alignment numerically. A simple example would be Good/Evil, which is a number from 0 to 1. If there is more than one dimension, such as Law/Chaos then you would have a number for each dimension.
2. Classify each dialogue choice using the same measurements
3. Devise an algorithm that determines the closeness of the dialogue options to the character alignment. Essentially you are working out the distance between two points in n-dimensions, so this is easy. Every dialogue option will have a 'distance' calculated
4. Set a threshold. Maybe every dialogue option under 0.5 is displayed.

If there are other factors, such as character intelligence, wisdom, charisma etc., then they just become extra dimensions. If you have too many dimensions then you could categorize them and have a distance calculation for each category. A dialogue option is only displayed if it passes the threshold for all categories.

This all sounds calculation heavy, but in a CRPG where the character is talking to NPCs you have plenty of time for processing of this nature.

To make it simpler, ignore the distance calculation and just have a threshold for each alignment dimension. This would work fine if there are only a few dimensions, such as Evil/Good, Chaos/Law. Example: Maybe the character is currently Evil 0.3/Good 0.7 and Chaos 0.8/Law 0.2, meaning a somewhat chaotic good alignment. Say one of your options is "If you are really so miserable then I guess handing over all your cash is hardly going to upset you is it?" Evil 0.6 Chaos 0.5. The character would not see this option because he is not evil enough to be so mean. Personally, I think the distance calculation works better because it is more "fuzzy", but there is nothing wrong with this option. At least it is easier to see which response would be shown to a given character.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

The idea that alignment adds dialogue choices is fine by me as a means of a slippery slope. There should be some less than nice dialogue available for even the nicest player character and there should be some nice ones available for the evil son of a bitch character. That said, when a player is really, really evil, giving him an extra option of being even more evil is perfectly fine. The same thing with being good, though it might be harder to figure out what extra good is and what the consequences of being that way are.

 

[galsiah]

I still can't see this working in any complex setting. Something like KOTOR (not that I've played it) is probably as good as you'll get, setting wise - clear good vs evil, and an expectation that most characters stick fairly close to one outlook (rather than acting randomly).
In a more general setting, attacking/killing someone can be considered "good" or "evil" entirely depending on the perspective of the character.

1. Classify each alignment numerically. A simple example would be Good/Evil, which is a number from 0 to 1. If there is more than one dimension, such as Law/Chaos then you would have a number for each dimension.
2. Classify each dialogue choice using the same measurements

That doesn't work for chaos though. A chaotic character doesn't consistently choose chaotic choices - he chooses a wide variety of inconsistent choices over time [going against the law all the time is just law with another perspective, not chaos]. Most of the chaos comes from choice combinations, not individual choices. You probably could handle this, but not merely by assigning a law/chaos value to each response - you'd need to force a degree of inconsistency on the player by disallowing choices which followed the same trend as his previous ones.

Adapting NPC responses to previous player action is certainly desirable. I'm not sure I'd dismiss constraints on player dialogue though. It'd certainly need to be done very carefully, flexibly, and not too harshly - I don't think the original 3 from 8 idea is good at all. Player's should always get a reasonable range of responses. I think the rationale for restriction shouldn't be "this character wouldn't do that", but rather "that wouldn't occur to this character".

For example, it's unlikely that it would occur to a good character to say:
"I can't kill you - you have the information I need. But I can tie you down and cut your fingers off until you talk. Doesn't that sound like fun?"
A good character shouldn't get that option, but he should get some option to intimidate / threaten - perhaps without the violence.

Similarly, it's unlikely that it would occur to an evil out-for-himself character to say:
"It's ok - you keep the reward. My reward is to see justice done."

He might say it, but not genuinely. PS:T frequently had various responses qualified with [lie] or [bluff] etc. Perhaps an evil character should only get the [bluff] option for the above.

 

[Limorkil]

That doesn't work for chaos though. A chaotic character doesn't consistently choose chaotic choices - he chooses a wide variety of inconsistent choices over time [going against the law all the time is just law with another perspective, not chaos]. Most of the chaos comes from choice combinations, not individual choices. You probably could handle this, but not merely by assigning a law/chaos value to each response - you'd need to force a degree of inconsistency on the player by disallowing choices which followed the same trend as his previous ones.

I see your point, but then that argument applies to everything. One thing that pisses me off about most RPGs is the assumption that evil people cannot do any good. Your evil type might be good 99% of the time, when the consequences do not impact him negatively. That is why I ended up neutral in Kotor, because I didn't feel the need to rob and kill people all the time. In fact, I drifted into the light side many times, but then there were enough reasons to be merciless (which is a dark side action) to bring me back.

The whole Good/Evil, Law/Chaos thing is bullshit if you ask me, but I put up with it because it is a workable simplification. I find it useful for spell effects, such as "Protection from Evil" but not for actual character personality. What I have in mind when I think of alignment in the context of dialogue is what you might call character 'traits' such as being selfish, ruthless, superstitious, honest, etc. Even they are simplifications, but I find them more meaningful in a PnP RPG, which is why I've been using them instead of alignment for 20+ years.

I guess it all depends on how far you want to take the alignment thing. Really, it is all gray. We impose artificial rules on reality so that we can make it into a game. The question should not be "Is it realistic?" but "Will people like it?" Personally I think it is an interesting idea for a game.

 

[DarkSign]

What about a system like the OP's but where actions are weighted...and speech options are too.

So that you wouldnt be straightjacketed...but say if you hit some threshold (say 6 chaotic evil responses bumped you 1 rung down the ladder) your characters alignment would be dynamic.

Obviously, killing the king's daughter with no quest or provocation to do so would be a huge bump down the ladder whereas killing a bum stealing from you wouldnt be as much.

 

[galsiah]

What I have in mind when I think of alignment in the context of dialogue is what you might call character 'traits' such as being selfish, ruthless, superstitious, honest, etc. Even they are simplifications, but I find them more meaningful in a PnP RPG...

That makes sense. It'd be damn hard to get right though. If you're talking traits, then "unpredictable", or equivalent would cause the same kind of problems as a chaotic alignment. Of course you wouldn't need to include that as a trait, but it could be interesting - if complicated to implement.

It'd certainly be much easier to handle absolute traits - e.g. honest, violent, compulsive liar... - rather than relative ones - e.g. good, evil... - in a general setting.

 

[Atrokkus]

It'd certainly be much easier to handle absolute traits - e.g. honest, violent, compulsive liar... - rather than relative ones - e.g. good, evil... - in a general setting.

And realistic, to boot.

 

[Surlent]

I'm kinda half torn with this. If you want to create a character from the start with all atributes why not give it a set alignment and let the character go like that ?
Compare it to the classic player skill versus character skill. Like in some FPS/RPG hybrids player skill plays into more than character's agility stat when aiming with guns. If you determine alignment on a scale too, why should player be allowed to influence it ? Isn't the player's mind and the character's mind separate similarly like dumb character vs smart player ? Granted it would make character development and progression pretty null aside from initial character's creation and the whole game would feel like handhelding the pc from start to finish. Me thinks you'd play for the character more than as the character inside the game world.

As opposite, starting with almost entirely clean table would give more choices to develop the character along the game as it progresses. Your choices would lead the character to become sum of your choices and if that fits into the character's style it will still be under the line of roleplaying. I guess it falls to game designer's view what he wants the character development be like. Like above posters said, alignment shaping up during the game and giving additional options sounds like the golden middle road to go.

 

[Spazmo]

Well, it comes back to something I think I've discussed before: alignment is bunk. Occasionally, it can come in handy, for example in D&D where evil characters might not get healing spells. But in general, I don't like the either having the game extrapolate who my character is from my actions and I like even less having to decide my character's morality at character creation. What should matter--and what can be far more objectively tracked by the game--is the character's reputation. There should be no absolute good or evil on your character sheet, there should only be these guys like you, but these guys don't.