Dialog options determined by alignment

[Surlent]

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.

Yeah, one number for reputation and/or small set of alignments is pretty simple solution doing character's influence compared to tracking down every npcs' reaction (including modifiers like factions, outlook, etc) towards the pc. But in a setting like DnD where they have defined ethics to strong stereotypes, epic heroes every townsfolk loves and people can sense others' alignments with spells it's fairly understandable to use the predetermined approach. In another setting with maybe more attempt to realism, it might be better to avoid the stereotypical morals. But again if it meets the developer's eye.

 

[John Yossarian]

I don't like a definite alignment scale, but I think another way of thinking about it might make the changes in dialogue options more believable. IMO the number of dialogue options should only depend on Att. and skills, but maybe the way in which each option is said could depend on your past actions. Using a simple good/evil scale, you could make 2 or 3 different versions of the really polarized diaoluge options (1,2,6,7 from the author's example). For example,take a character with crappy dialogue skills and att., who has only done evil things so far, and the old man doesnt know about them. You could still give him options 1 and 2, but change the wording to show how akward or unfamiliar saying these things is to the character, since he has no practice doing it. And this would not just be a superficial change, you could also make influence whether the old man will trust you or not. Of course talking skills and att. should also influence the version of the dialogue option you get.

However i also think npc reactions are more important. In general, I think all NPCs in a town/city should know what kind of things you have done in that town, and should give or keep quests from you accordingly. Like if the old man knew of all the bad stuff you have done, he should just lock his house everytime he sees you, whether you genuinely want to help him or not. I agree that you should have the option to change alignment anytime you want, but i see no reason why the rest of the world would immeaditely believe your change of heart.

 

[Monolith]

Well, here's my solution to the "good - evil" and "chaos - law" problem:

First of all, I guess I made a terrible mistake calling it an alignment system and bringing in the terms "good" and "evil" . I don't have a DnD alignment system in mind - not even close! The DnD alignment system confronts the player with terms such as chaos, law, good, evil and neutral. It isn't even up to the player to decide how these terms (which are quite vague) are defined.

The system I have in mind works in the background - game mechanics only. The player won't actually notice it, he won't be confronted with those terms ev4r. All he does is choosing a background at the character creation. It's up to the player to make the logical conclusions in terms of character alignment. To be flexible there won't be just one dialog option, but many to choose from. All of them will be "in character" but some will give you the possibility to drift away. Actually including a scale for "chaos" and "law" isn't necessary because it's up to the player to call something chaotic or lawful. Such a decision doesn't need to influence game mechanics - it can be purely esthetic. As long as it's included and has consequences it should be fine. No need to tell the player that choice 7 is chaotic and choice 5 is not.

Any thoughts on that?

 

[DarkSign]

True. Even d20 created a reputation system years after D&D had alignment. A more reprecise tool for a similar function.

 

[Drakron]

It did not, I know BG had a reputation system but that was never part of the rules.