Implementation of good and evil paths in RPGs

[Shemar]

It is funny how D&D is used as an example of how good using 'alignment' is when the D&D system itself abolished it (relegated to a meaningless word that has no bearing whatsoever in character building or gameplay).

The now defunct D&D alignment system with all its class/build restrictions was a system horribly broken, not to mention moronically simplistic. It worked 20 years ago when players and the world in general was a much simpler place, but it has no place in a modern RPG. I think the one paragraph above trying to define what a character of this or that alignment would or would not do is a perfect demonstartion of how childishly simplistic the notion that all people fit in 9 symmetrical boxes is.

Real role players are perfectl'y capable of palying consistent characters without a silly, simplistic and above all arbitrary and limited alignment system.

 

[JarlFrank]

@ Sacred Path:

I could try to argue further but I won't because I've just realized one thing:
We're talking about altogether different types of games, or settings. I usually have my own fantasy setting in mind when discussing such things, and there "good" and "evil" aren't really of any relevance, nor are there any magic items that require a certain alignment. You're arguing from the typical D&D point of view, where, yes, clear good and evil is possible and has clear differences.

However, assume a setting where good and evil are not forces. There are no powerful items only usable by good guys or bad guys, there aren't any special clerical powers only doable by good people. There's just humans with ambitions and skills, magic doesn't have any moral prerequisites (even a necromancer can be a good guy), and gods don't openly show themselves like in D&D (and neither are they personifications of clear good and evil, either - they're more like the Norse or Greek gods).

In a setting like this, which I find vastly preferable to ones where good and evil are actual forces, or where gods personify these "values", how could alignment influence the player's stats or items he uses? I doubt that this is possible in any reasonable way. Also, classes wouldn't be alignment-restricted in a world like that either. Paladins would be more similar to medieval crusaders than to the righteous evil-smiters of D&D. Which means, they don't have a problem raping helpless women and killing children as long as they're infidels.

Against my argument of good and meaningful choices instead of clear good/evil stuff, you said they'd be more memorable (the clear g/e ones). Well, that really depends. Does every choice have to be a clear moral choice? Take the Witcher as example - give crates of supplies to rebels so their people don't have to starve, or protect them for their rightful owner. Which is the good choice? Which is the evil choice? Both can be morally justified. Whether that choice is memorable or not depends on the player, of course - some might say yes, some might say no. But, fact is, especially choices with a political background have great potential for being memorable - both because of the choice itself as well as the eventual consequence (lord X coming to power instead of lord Y, and the ending slides saying how he ruled his realm) - without having any clear moral behind it.

So probably we just misunderstood each other. I just meant choices by themselves, without necessarily any moral impact. You were probably talking about moral choices, specifically.

 

[SacredPath]

It is funny how D&D is used as an example of how good using 'alignment' is when the D&D system itself abolished it (relegated to a meaningless word that has no bearing whatsoever in character building or gameplay).

that may be the case in 4th edition or whatever, which I wouldn't know since I'm no P&P fag. Also note how I say that I'm no advocate of D&D, it simply lends itself to explaining the advantages, and maybe the shortcomings, of alignments.

It worked 20 years ago when players and the world in general was a much simpler place

Delusional much?

moronically simplistic

Might I suggest the term "intuitive" ?

If you buy into alignments and D&D's interpretation of them or not, you won't get around the fact that in a CRPG, what isn't intuitive is probably bad from a design standpoint.

Noone wants to read a 300 page manual, 100 pages of which consist of the developer ranting about his very subjective interpretation of the universe and how his totally original take on good and evil is reflected in the game. Holy narcissism Batman.

I think the one paragraph above trying to define what a character of this or that alignment would or would not do is a perfect demonstartion of how childishly simplistic the notion that all people fit in 9 symmetrical boxes is.

We could play a little game of back and forth with you asking me what behavior X would be in D&D terms, which is a moot but fun exercise, but I guess that's not what you intended.

The point is: is it simplistic? Yes. But is it functional? Oh yes. It creates a lot of stereotypes, but then you can play with those stereotypes and invert them to create some more options.

Real role players are perfectl'y capable of palying consistent characters without a silly, simplistic and above all arbitrary and limited alignment system.

I won't even argue with that, but I think this sort of ambition is misplaced with CRPGs. *cough* LARPing *cough*

 

[JarlFrank]

Real role players are perfectl'y capable of palying consistent characters without a silly, simplistic and above all arbitrary and limited alignment system.

Also, pretty much this. Except for limiting and restricting, an alignment system like D&Ds isn't anything very much. It certainly doesn't have any elements that would be positive for a PC RPG, at least none that I can see.

 

[SacredPath]

However, assume a setting where good and evil are not forces. There are no powerful items only usable by good guys or bad guys, there aren't any special clerical powers only doable by good people. There's just humans with ambitions and skills, magic doesn't have any moral prerequisites (even a necromancer can be a good guy), and gods don't openly show themselves like in D&D (and neither are they personifications of clear good and evil, either - they're more like the Norse or Greek gods).

In a setting like this, which I find vastly preferable to ones where good and evil are actual forces, or where gods personify these "values", how could alignment influence the player's stats or items he uses? I doubt that this is possible in any reasonable way. Also, classes wouldn't be alignment-restricted in a world like that either. Paladins would be more similar to medieval crusaders than to the righteous evil-smiters of D&D. Which means, they don't have a problem raping helpless women and killing children as long as they're infidels.

I think any developer should freely create their own setting if they so choose to, however: wouldn't it be hard to add some "flavour" to an agnostic setting as you describe it? Roleplaying still has strong ties to heroic fiction after all, though sometimes you may also assume the role of the villain. A lot of settings receive their atmosphere from conflicts like good vs. evil, and to create actual moral dilemmas you'd probably need some kind of orientation in that fictional world; too many shades of grey would fuck up the picture.

Against my argument of good and meaningful choices instead of clear good/evil stuff, you said they'd be more memorable (the clear g/e ones). Well, that really depends. Does every choice have to be a clear moral choice? Take the Witcher as example - give crates of supplies to rebels so their people don't have to starve, or protect them for their rightful owner. Which is the good choice? Which is the evil choice? Both can be morally justified. Whether that choice is memorable or not depends on the player, of course - some might say yes, some might say no. But, fact is, especially choices with a political background have great potential for being memorable - both because of the choice itself as well as the eventual consequence (lord X coming to power instead of lord Y, and the ending slides saying how he ruled his realm) - without having any clear moral behind it.

I would sum up your point as: not every choice given must be explored as to its moral implications. And I'm with you on that of course. But that doesn't necessariliy exclude alignment as a whole.

 

[Shemar]

Might I suggest the term "intuitive" ?

If you buy into alignments and D&D's interpretation of them or not, you won't get around the fact that in a CRPG, what isn't intuitive is probably bad from a design standpoint.

Noone wants to read a 300 page manual, 100 pages of which consist of the developer ranting about his very subjective interpretation of the universe and how his totally original take on good and evil is reflected in the game. Holy narcissism Batman.

How about zero pages on alignment or good/evil, no rules or restrictions whatsoever. How about rules being about how combat and skills work and leave the role playing to the role players? You can't get more intuitive than that. Unless you actually need rules to tell you how to role play.

But is it functional? Oh yes. It creates a lot of stereotypes, but then you can play with those stereotypes and invert them to create some more options.

Or you can play freely and creatively without the simplistic and arbitrary restrictions of alignment. Which does not mean you can't play a sterotype if you want to but you are not forced into playing one.

I won't even argue with that, but I think this sort of ambition is misplaced with CRPGs. *cough* LARPing *cough*

So... in other words... you are not interested in playing a character concistently if you are playing a cRPG (because that is LARPing?, some people in this forum have weird notions) but you are advocation in favor of rule systems enforcing playing your character consistently?

I'm no P&P fag

Comments like that separate the mature adults from the immature (chronologically or intellectually) morons. Guess which neat little box you put yourself in.

 

[JarlFrank]

However, assume a setting where good and evil are not forces. There are no powerful items only usable by good guys or bad guys, there aren't any special clerical powers only doable by good people. There's just humans with ambitions and skills, magic doesn't have any moral prerequisites (even a necromancer can be a good guy), and gods don't openly show themselves like in D&D (and neither are they personifications of clear good and evil, either - they're more like the Norse or Greek gods).

In a setting like this, which I find vastly preferable to ones where good and evil are actual forces, or where gods personify these "values", how could alignment influence the player's stats or items he uses? I doubt that this is possible in any reasonable way. Also, classes wouldn't be alignment-restricted in a world like that either. Paladins would be more similar to medieval crusaders than to the righteous evil-smiters of D&D. Which means, they don't have a problem raping helpless women and killing children as long as they're infidels.

I think any developer should freely create their own setting if they so choose to, however: wouldn't it be hard to add some "flavour" to an agnostic setting as you describe it? Roleplaying still has strong ties to heroic fiction after all, though sometimes you may also assume the role of the villain. A lot of settings receive their atmosphere from conflicts like good vs. evil, and to create actual moral dilemmas you'd probably need some kind of orientation in that fictional world; too many shades of grey would fuck up the picture.

It's a setting where many different nations, and also races (it does have the good ole elves and dwarves) exist and are in competition with each other. There's lots of political machinations around, and everyone thinks of themselves as the good guys - or, better, the superior race/culture. There's also ancient ruins, some of which still house ancient powerful beings, but they're not necessarily evil and not a driving force in the setting either. Magic is also more than merely wizards casting spells: magic users are their own social class (like gentry, clerics, peasants, nobility), there are quite a few magocracies in the world, and magic is actually used for useful things in society other than just combat spells.

Basically, the setting is interesting because of all its different elements,all its different cultures and nations and the conflicts/relations between them. It's the same reason why history is interesting. If you like history, you'd like this setting. If you don't, well, then it's not really the right flavour for you.

 

[SacredPath]

How about zero pages on alignment or good/evil, no rules or restrictions whatsoever. How about rules being about how combat and skills work and leave the role playing to the role players? You can't get more intuitive than that. Unless you actually need rules to tell you how to role play.

That may work fine in P&P (though I doubt it), but in CRPGs, I would think something is missing. I think replay value benefits enormously from having a distinct path to walk on.

Negative example: Gothic

Early on you get the impression that the Old Camp is full of thugs, the New Camp is full of anarchists and thieves, and the Swamp Camp is full of violent loonies. Not much variation there, is it? I could hardly bring myself to play through it once, let alone more than that. It lacked all sense of "epicness", of anything that connects you with your environment, let alone the cosmos (which is what you get in D&D). OTOH all camps had some support to offer. Lots of shades of grey there, and it bored me to tears.

Or you can play freely and creatively without the simplistic and arbitrary restrictions of alignment. Which does not mean you can't play a sterotype if you want to but you are not forced into playing one.

Like I said, I think this really fits in with P&Ping. Face it, the number of choices you will be allowed to make in a CRPG will be limited considering the ressources and intents of the developer. Moreover, in a good CRPG, those few choices will be narrowed down even more by the character you're running (low intelligence? Low perception? Reputation too good or too bad? Sorry, no more quests for you). So you'd better make those few choices count. This is achieved, like I've said before, very nicely if you manage to get the choices reflected in a character's stats. Granted, this doesn't necessarily require an alignment system, but I think that makes it easier to implement.

So... in other words... you are not interested in playing a character concistently if you are playing a cRPG (because that is LARPing?, some people in this forum have weird notions) but you are advocation in favor of rule systems enforcing playing your character consistently?

You said you can play a character consistently without alignment guiding you, I said this is a more appropriate approach for LARPing, as staying in character is very easy there.

doesn't play P&P = immature moron

 

[SacredPath]

the setting is interesting

that's what you say

because of all its different elements,all its different cultures and nations and the conflicts/relations between them. It's the same reason why history is interesting. If you like history, you'd like this setting. If you don't, well, then it's not really the right flavour for you.

Darklands was a historical RPG, but they got it right in that they took the popular assumptions about good and evil of the actual period the game was set in (late Middle Ages) and tried to transplant them 1:1. Priests and other ordained clerics are good because the Church says so, Satan worshipping villagers are evil as are kobolds and dwarfs. Fighting is evil and destructive, unless it's done by people who have been authorized to do so by the Church (crusaders) or officials enforcing the status quo (city guard).

The thing is that you have to sell your setting to the player, to catch his interest. "In my world there are lots of shades of grey" doesn't really do much for me, nor for a lot of other players I'd wager. Not that shades of grey are a problem by themselves though, but it's the absence of certain poles, the extremes of the moral spectrum, that bug me.

 

[JarlFrank]

Early on you get the impression that the Old Camp is full of thugs, the New Camp is full of anarchists and thieves, and the Swamp Camp is full of violent loonies. Not much variation there, is it? I could hardly bring myself to play through it once, let alone more than that. It lacked all sense of "epicness", of anything that connects you with your environment, let alone the cosmos (which is what you get in D&D). OTOH all camps had some support to offer. Lots of shades of grey there, and it bored me to tears.

Seems your problem in this case is not shades of gray or lack of good and evil, but lack of variety.

How about the following example:

In the high elven empire, there are different political factions. One of these factions believes their race to be the most awesome and superior on the whole world, and all others are lesser races and should not be allowed to immigrate because they'd just pollute the pure elven society. Ideally, the least valuable of these races should even be entirely exterminated.

Another faction supports trade with the other races, because it's good for the empire and brings prosperity and exotic goods. They're not as racist as the previously mentioned faction (which means they're just about as racist as the average high elf, which means they see themselves as superior but don't hate the lesser races).

Which one would you support? Both have valid points of view, neither are "good" or "evil", they just have different political viewpoints. Then again, some people might feel that exterminating lesser races is evil, but I'd say that this is a perfectly valid and okay opinion to have.

My point is: if there are different factions with different points of view, which are not necessarily good or evil, then the game is interesting and the choices are interesting. "Variety" is the keyword here, not "morality". When designing factions, variety is always the thing you have to strive for. Different motivations, different goals, different ideologies.

 

[JarlFrank]

The thing is that you have to sell your setting to the player, to catch his interest. "In my world there are lots of shades of grey" doesn't really do much for me, nor for a lot of other players I'd wager. Not that shades of grey are a problem by themselves though, but it's the absence of certain poles, the extremes of the moral spectrum, that bug me.

That's not the selling point of my setting, at all. The point is to be a realistic, or semi-realistic, fantasy world with a complex history and many different nations with different ideologies. Some rulers are assholes, some are more benevolent. Also, there's both magic and technology, kinda like in Arcanum.

Anyway, if there's ever going to be a game in that setting (might take a few years, until Splintered Core is finished ) you'll see what it's like.

 

[Shemar]

I think replay value benefits enormously from having a distinct path to walk on.

Having alignment as an in-game mechanic has nothing to do with having distinct paths in a game. You seem to be confusing the concept of doing good/evil acts with the concept of having an actual rule based alignment value. If you still don't get that you can play a good or evil character without a neat little title telling you to, well I give up.

Like I said, I think this really fits in with P&Ping. Face it, the number of choices you will be allowed to make in a CRPG will be limited considering the ressources and intents of the developer. Moreover, in a good CRPG, those few choices will be narrowed down even more by the character you're running (low intelligence? Low perception? Reputation too good or too bad? Sorry, no more quests for you). So you'd better make those few choices count. This is achieved, like I've said before, very nicely if you manage to get the choices reflected in a character's stats. Granted, this doesn't necessarily require an alignment system, but I think that makes it easier to implement.

No it doesn't. Thousands of non-D&D non-alignment RPGs have been succesfully doing it for decades. Also, none of the above makes much sense. As far as I can tell you are saying you need in-game rewards to play your character consistently, which just makes you a bad (role-)player. Finally, since you very clearly and admittedly do not play PnP, it would be advisable for (whatever is left of) your credibility to stop referring to it in non-existig contrasts with cRPGs and form an argument that makes sense.

You said you can play a character consistently without alignment guiding you, I said this is a more appropriate approach for LARPing, as staying in character is very easy there.

I have never found it hard to stay in character in any form of role playing, PnP or cRPG. If you need rules to force you to stay in character in cRPGs that is your limitation, not the medium's.

doesn't play P&P = immature moron

No it is more like: uses expressions like "P&P fag" = immature moron, which anyone with basic intellect could easily infere.

 

[SacredPath]

Having alignment as an in-game mechanic has nothing to do with having distinct paths in a game.

Counter example: Might & Magic VII

No it doesn't. Thousands of non-D&D non-alignment RPGs have been succesfully doing it for decades.

The above sentence seems to be out of context completely, but I'll try to interpret it. So you're saying thousands of CRPGs have allowed the player to make numerous and memorable moral choices without any concept of alignment? I'd certainly like to see that list.

As far as I can tell you are saying you need in-game rewards to play your character consistently, which just makes you a bad (role-)player.

There is no roleplaying contest going on here, the question is what motivates a player to buy a game and then plow their way through it. "You can choose answer A over answer B!" isn't much of an advertisement.

Playing Baldur's Gate II with an evil party can be a completely different experience than playing with a party of paladins, for numerous reasons.
You do get to choose different dialogue options, but it doesn't stop there. They can influence your reputation, which is basically like an alignment meter. Your alignment and the dialogue choices going with that can open up quests which will in turn again influence your alignment and reputation. Secondly, there are the class and equipment options going with your alignment, and the differing costs in shops/ temples for characters of different reputation. All of that contributes to replay value enormously.

non-existig contrasts with cRPGs

so you claim P&P/ LARPing and CRPGs don't differ enormously


I guess it's necessary to define alignment first before we can have any meaningful discussion. By alignment, I mean the (measurable) orientation of your character between at least two poles, be they good and evil, order and chaos etc. This can, but doesn't have to, happen in the form of fixed titles (like D&D), but also on a more dynamic scale (such as the alignment meter in Arcanum, or Karma and local reputation in Fallout).

Moral choices are nice, but they won't be memorable unless you can give the player a sense of how he's affecting the gameworld and where his position is in it. Alignments achieve this by being simple statements like "this character is a self-serving criminal!" or "this character strives to defend others and uphold the law".

 

[Shemar]

Counter example: Might & Magic VII

What does that even mean?

The above sentence seems to be out of context completely, but I'll try to interpret it. So you're saying thousands of CRPGs have allowed the player to make numerous and memorable moral choices without any concept of alignment? I'd certainly like to see that list.

I can't remember a single choice that was memorable or affected by whether alignment was in play or not. My top memorable moment related to choices was one where I had to chooce which one to save between two companions that were both about to die.

I guess it's necessary to define alignment first before we can have any meaningful discussion. By alignment, I mean the (measurable) orientation of your character between at least two poles, be they good and evil, order and chaos etc. This can, but doesn't have to, happen in the form of fixed titles (like D&D), but also on a more dynamic scale (such as the alignment meter in Arcanum, or Karma and local reputation in Fallout).

No, that is not alignment. You specifically mentioned alignment as a game mechanic that limits your class/item use choices and puts expectations on how a character has to behave by limiting his dialogue choices, which is the exactly what my initial post addresses. You specifically talked about making an alignment choice at character build, which also directly contradicts your new found 'definition'. Your lame attempt at re-defining alignmens as any game that ever used a reputation system does not go unnoticed although it does make arguing some of the points any further pointless.

so you claim P&P/ LARPing and CRPGs don't differ enormously

Funny how in the very same post you bitch about being quoted out of context and then continue to do so repeatedly yourself. So, listen you ignorant twat, first off PnP and LARP are nothing related (not that I have anything against people who are into LARP, I leave the prejudices to the ignorant morons). Second, the context is what motivates a player to have their character make good/evil/moral choices and in that respect no, there is absolutely no difference between PnP and cRPG.

Moral choices are nice, but they won't be memorable unless you can give the player a sense of how he's affecting the gameworld and where his position is in it. Alignments achieve this by being simple statements like "this character is a self-serving criminal!" or "this character strives to defend others and uphold the law".

That is pretty much complete bullshit. Even in games that do have some kind of reputation meter I rarely bother or care about it. Once again, if you need that meter/number to make you feel your choices mean something, that is your limitation as a player.

 

[SacredPath]

Counter example: Might & Magic VII

What does that even mean?

you said "Having alignment as an in-game mechanic has nothing to do with having distinct paths in a game." Might & Magic VII is an example to the contrary. It starts out without any moral choices, but about midgame it imposes a choice between two extremes (light and dark), and it even imposed the "neat little titles" that you mentioned as being synonymous with alignment. This refutes your point that alignment and distinct paths in a game aren't connected.

I can't remember a single choice that was memorable or affected by whether alignment was in play or not. My top memorable moment related to choices was one where I had to chooce which one to save between two companions that were both about to die.

So you cannot remember any choices worth mentioning in a CRPG? Interesting. Of course that begs the question of what would make a memorable choice in your opinion.

No, that is not alignment. You specifically mentioned alignment as a game mechanic that limits your class/item use choices and puts expectations on how a character has to behave by limiting his dialogue choices, which is the exactly what my initial post addresses. You specifically talked about making an alignment choice at character build, which also directly contradicts your new found 'definition'.

The things I mentioned were examples of how a moral orientation, expressed by alignment, can be put into the game. I've also repeatedly said that I'm no D&D advocate, and that I mention D&D like alignments only because they are very popular and lend themselves to demonstration. BTW what you say there in no way refutes my definition of alignment given above; the things you mention are only possible consequences of alignment in a game.

Your lame attempt at re-defining alignmens as any game that ever used a reputation system does not go unnoticed

I'm glad that your perceptions are clear enough to read my text.

Funny how in the very same post you bitch about being quoted out of context and then continue to do so repeatedly yourself. So, listen you ignorant twat, first off PnP and LARP are nothing related (not that I have anything against people who are into LARP, I leave the prejudices to the ignorant morons). Second, the context is what motivates a player to have their character make good/evil/moral choices and in that respect no, there is absolutely no difference between PnP and cRPG.

I think I'll just let this go uncommented as it demonstrates both your helplessness in a discussion and your glaring misconceptions (that players expect exactly the same things of a CRPG that they expect in P&P).

That is pretty much complete bullshit. Even in games that do have some kind of reputation meter I rarely bother or care about it.

You have to care about it if the consequences in-game are harsh enough.

 

[Sceptic]

Playing Baldur's Gate II with an evil party can be a completely different experience than playing with a party of paladins, for numerous reasons.
You do get to choose different dialogue options, but it doesn't stop there. They can influence your reputation, which is basically like an alignment meter. Your alignment and the dialogue choices going with that can open up quests which will in turn again influence your alignment and reputation. Secondly, there are the class and equipment options going with your alignment, and the differing costs in shops/ temples for characters of different reputation. All of that contributes to replay value enormously.

I really, really HATE to be contributing to Shemar's "argument" but unfortunately everything you just posted here is pure bullshit. I mean in theory it would make a great game, and there's maybe even some that have done this (can't be bothered thinking about it now), but BG2 is not among them. There is only one NPC that influences your reputation (Viconia) and it's a one-time thing. There is exactly ONE QUEST in the entire game that is opened up by alignment, and that's in ToB. Funnily enough it doesn't influence your reputation. There is only one class that is restricted to one alignment, and that class has exactly two items (one in SOA, one in ToB) that are unique to it. And different prices in shops, while true, really, really isn't a good argument for replayability.

In short, no, good vs evil party in BG2 plays EXACTLY the same. Party of paladins vs party of anything else plays differently obviously, but you can hardly use this one exception as a rule. It READS differently, and a handful of quests (half a dozen I think?) have very, very slight variation, and that's about it. The one major difference is in choosing the Thieves vs Bodhi path, but IIRC none of this affects rep or has anything to do with alignment, and 3 quests isn't exactly an earth-shattering difference in the grand scheme of things.

 

[SacredPath]

I really, really HATE to be contributing to Shemar's "argument" but unfortunately everything you just posted here is pure bullshit. I mean in theory it would make a great game, and there's maybe even some that have done this (can't be bothered thinking about it now), but BG2 is not among them. There is only one NPC that influences your reputation (Viconia) and it's a one-time thing. There is exactly ONE QUEST in the entire game that is opened up by alignment, and that's in ToB. Funnily enough it doesn't influence your reputation. There is only one class that is restricted to one alignment, and that class has exactly two items (one in SOA, one in ToB) that are unique to it. And different prices in shops, while true, really, really isn't a good argument for replayability.

Right of the top of my head I can remember the possibility to make the human skin armor. I haven't tested it, but I would guess that paladins can't do this quest, and maybe other good aligned characters can't either (I haven't researched this because the item you get in the end is alignment restricted - evil only).

Secondly, Rangers must be good, Druids must be True Neutral, Monks must be lawful, and Barbarians can't be lawful. So much for there being only one alignment restricted class.

In short, no, good vs evil party in BG2 plays EXACTLY the same.

That's a pretty steaming pile of BS since even a party composed of different characters will play differently (because of personal quests for example).

Party of paladins vs party of anything else plays differently obviously, but you can hardly use this one exception as a rule.

Why not? I never implied that every party alignment plays completely different from every other. Obviously, a party composed of lawful neutral characters won't play much different than one composed of true neutrals.

It READS differently, and a handful of quests (half a dozen I think?) have very, very slight variation, and that's about it. The one major difference is in choosing the Thieves vs Bodhi path, but IIRC none of this affects rep or has anything to do with alignment, and 3 quests isn't exactly an earth-shattering difference in the grand scheme of things.

Just to make it clear, my point was not to celebrate BGII, nor to prove that it made the most out of alignment, nor even that D&D style alignment is the best possible system. I just picked out some examples of how morals can be integrated into stats and quests, and I still think BGII does a good job here compared to most other CRPGs.

 

[Shemar]

you said "Having alignment as an in-game mechanic has nothing to do with having distinct paths in a game." Might & Magic VII is an example to the contrary. It starts out without any moral choices, but about midgame it imposes a choice between two extremes (light and dark), and it even imposed the "neat little titles" that you mentioned as being synonymous with alignment. This refutes your point that alignment and distinct paths in a game aren't connected.

How the hell does that refute anything? Just because this particular game does it, it means every other game has to do it that way too? Or that is the only way to have disctinct paths? What the hell? Even in this one particular game that you use as an example, you could eliminate all notions of defined/particular alignment and give the player the exact same choice with the exact same results without nothing changing.

So you cannot remember any choices worth mentioning in a CRPG? Interesting. Of course that begs the question of what would make a memorable choice in your opinion.

Can you even read english? How the hell did you manage to read "my most memorable moment had nothing to do with alignment" into "I can't remember any choices worth mentioning"? I just NAMED a choice worth mentioning it.

The things I mentioned were examples of how a moral orientation, expressed by alignment, can be put into the game. I've also repeatedly said that I'm no D&D advocate, and that I mention D&D like alignments only because they are very popular and lend themselves to demonstration. BTW what you say there in no way refutes my definition of alignment given above; the things you mention are only possible consequences of alignment in a game.

No they are not. Not even by a long shot. Alignment is not reputation. They may seem the same thing to your limited intellect but they are not. First of all, alignment is how a character sees themselves and is more or less a personal choice (through actions and in some systems through character building). Reputation is how the rest of the world sees the character as a result of their actions. Huge difference to the non-clueless. Second, while alignment is personal, reputation can be global (simplistic), local, faction, personal (to a specific other person). Completely different mechanics. Reputation never interferes with character choices or magic item usage and is never something a charcater just decides.

I think I'll just let this go uncommented as it demonstrates both your helplessness in a discussion and your glaring misconceptions (that players expect exactly the same things of a CRPG that they expect in P&P).

And again, it would only take minute amounts of trace intellect to figure out that what you are reading into my words ("players expect exactly the same things of a CRPG that they expect in P&P") has nothing to do with what I said ("the context is what motivates a player to have their character make good/evil/moral choices and in that respect no, there is absolutely no difference between PnP and cRPG"). But then again why would anyone expect anything more from somebody that even behind the anonymity of internet forums they need to use alts to post.

You have to care about it if the consequences in-game are harsh enough.

No, good players do not. If your criteria for making moral choices in a game is what the consequences will be and not what you want your character to do, then right there is why you are never going to get it. And for one more time, that is your limitation, not the game's. You need the game to give you rewards/punishments or at least a ping on some arbitrary alignment/reputation bar for any of your character's actions to mean anythign to you. I get it. I just don't subscribe to it.

In closing you have clearly demonstrated that you are either too stupid to understand what I am saying or intentionally misreading pretty much everything. In either case you clearly have nothing interesting or useful to say so feel free to keep alt-trolling, you will be ignored from now on.

 

[Sceptic]

Right of the top of my head I can remember the possibility to make the human skin armor. I haven't tested it, but I would guess that paladins can't do this quest, and maybe other good aligned characters can't either

I don't remember if Paladins fall if they do it (they should), but IIRC the quest isn't limited to alignment. I mean good characters will probably complete the whole Underdark path by helping the dragon (more loot, more XP, just a better path gameplay wise), but even they can kill the dragon and take the blood to whatever the guy was called to have the skin made. Not that it matters since by the time you have it the armor's pretty rubbish. You DID remind me though that only evil characters can sacrifice the eggs to the demon themselves and get a nice magical item out of it, so that one does count.

Secondly, Rangers must be good, Druids must be True Neutral, Monks must be lawful, and Barbarians can't be lawful. So much for there being only one alignment restricted class.

I said one class restricted to one alignment. I was wrong anyway, make that two, since I forgot about Druids. Barbarians can be six alignments, so that's hardly limit. In any case, none of the limitations (except Paladin) really matter because so few quests/events are affected by alignment, and in the case of the Paladin the limitations aren't imposed by the alignment but by the class itself (so a Lawful Good fighter can still do most evil acts in the game with no trouble).

That's a pretty steaming pile of BS since even a party composed of different characters will play differently (because of personal quests for example).

Completely irrelevant. We are talking about the effect of ALIGNMENT here. Whether ALIGNMENT will have any change on gameplay. Different NPC's adding minor quests is an entirely different beast. And the fact that the alignment composition of the party will change because you have different NPC's != alignments affecting gameplay.

Why not? I never implied that every party alignment plays completely different from every other. Obviously, a party composed of lawful neutral characters won't play much different than one composed of true neutrals.

Lawful Good won't play much different from Chaotic Neutral either (again unless you take a Paladin, but that particular change will be class-based, not alignment-based).

Just to make it clear, my point was not to celebrate BGII, nor to prove that it made the most out of alignment, nor even that D&D style alignment is the best possible system. I just picked out some examples of how morals can be integrated into stats and quests, and I still think BGII does a good job here compared to most other CRPGs.

I know what you meant, I just don't agree that BG2's a good example, for the reasons I've stated. Maybe it does it better than others, in that others don't even have flavor text change, but I don't think that's enough to say that the differences are significant, and more to the point I just didn't agree with some of your more weighty examples being relevant, because they're either class or NPC dependant. So, the argument would instead be that different classes and NPC's have an effect on replayability, but that's not alignment, and a class being tied to an alignment or an NPC having another alignment doesn't change that.

 

[denizsi]

 

[SacredPath]

Having alignment as an in-game mechanic has nothing to do with having distinct paths in a game.

Might & Magic VII is an example to the contrary. It starts out without any moral choices, but about midgame it imposes a choice between two extremes (light and dark), and it even imposed the "neat little titles" that you mentioned as being synonymous with alignment. This refutes your point that alignment and distinct paths in a game aren't connected.

How the hell does that refute anything?

Do you even know a logical fallacy when it bites your ass? Or is it just your lack of reading comprehension?

First of all, alignment is how a character sees themselves and is more or less a personal choice (through actions and in some systems through character building). Reputation is how the rest of the world sees the character as a result of their actions.

Second, while alignment is personal, reputation can be global (simplistic), local, faction, personal (to a specific other person).

Very well, let's take apart the terms we're talking about, why not. Of course you are wrong about alignment being a solely personal choice; for the term "alignment" to have any meaning at all, there need to be some standards in regards to which the character can be "aligned" or not. These standards will often be universal concepts like good and evil, which in turn will be represented in some way in that game's world; gods tend to embody these principles for example. But also all other factions in that game's world will be positioned somewhere on that alignment axis, which will in turn influence your standing with them, or your chances to get into contact with them at all. Bandits won't accept a lawful character, and I'm reiterating my point that there is no reason to let the player switch his behaviour like a completely erratic retard, so your alignment will influence your actions and how others perceive you. Your differentiation between alignment and reputation is therefore arbitrary.

And again, it would only take minute amounts of trace intellect to figure out that what you are reading into my words ("players expect exactly the same things of a CRPG that they expect in P&P") has nothing to do with what I said ("the context is what motivates a player to have their character make good/evil/moral choices and in that respect no, there is absolutely no difference between PnP and cRPG").

You're right, you just used another meaningless filler word here (as you seem to like doing), "the context". If you manage to be coherent for long enough so you can explain of what context exactly you're talking here, that'd be neat.

You have to care about it if the consequences in-game are harsh enough.

No, good players do not.

This is simply ridiculous BS.

Simple example: An evil character encounters a rich, lone merchant in the wilderness. Now let's assume that stealing from this merchant is not an option (picking pockets is rarely implemented very well), so you could only kill him. This in turn would cause your reputation to instantly drop so low that you'll be attacked on sight in all civilized areas, making the game impossible to win w/o cheating. Now while your character would usually have no qualms about stealing or killing, you might want to think twice about it. This example may just be culled from Baldur's Gate.
Again, I think your perceptions of roleplaying outside of videogames get in the way here, where such things aren't subject to engine limitations.


Note to self: I should have explained my definition of alignment right away instead of arguing with some loon afterwards.

Debating with Shemar is like arguing with Cleve Blakemore if Cleve had Down Syndrome.

feel free to keep alt-trolling

Paranoid much?

you will be ignored from now on.

Make my day.

 

[SacredPath]

Different NPC's adding minor quests is an entirely different beast. And the fact that the alignment composition of the party will change because you have different NPC's != alignments affecting gameplay.

Nop. In BG2 NPCs of vastly different alignments don't get along well, and your reputation can only satisfy one group at a time unless you keep your reputation neutral, but doing that will also impose a certain behaviour on you. And of course party composition that is restriced by alignment must be considered here.

Example: Choosing the "evil" answer when first encountering Anomen will make him unavailable as an NPC. Thereby you're missing out on his personal quest (which in turn has two different outcomes), his personal item, and on getting the help of one of only three NPC clerics in the game (and the most desirable IMO because he's the only one fit to tank). Again this is an example of alignment influencing your path through the game. The influence may not be huge, but it is something that can keep you coming back to the game.

Lawful Good won't play much different from Chaotic Neutral either (again unless you take a Paladin, but that particular change will be class-based, not alignment-based).

Neutral characters have a different reputation "requirement" to keep them satisfied than Good characters do. In fact the manual states that neutral characters can never be "happy" :/ They are unhappy with very high reputation though. If this is well executed, or if the interrelations between alignment and reputation should have been more extreme doesn't matter. Again, I'm not arguing about the desing qualities of BGII overall, but about the potential of having alignments in general.