Preview ToEE dev diary at RPG Vault

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Temple of Elemental Evil

<A href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/">RPG Vault</a> has another <a href="http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/423/423634p1.html">developer diary</a> for <A href="Http://www.greyhawkgame.com">Temple of Elemental Evil</a>, this time covering the concept of <i>Party Alignment</i>. Here's a taste:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Early in the development of ToEE, we felt the need to control which character alignments were allowed in a particular group. We were creating test parties consisting of lawful monks and chaotic barbarians, or paladins and evil sorcerers, and this felt wrong. In a paper and pencil session of D&D, the DM might disallow such pairings (certainly the pairing of paladins with any evil characters) or at least point out the unlikelihood and difficulties of that such a group would face. And certainly, such pairing would lead to bickering and intra-party strife.
<br>
<br>
Such mixed-alignment groups could abuse the quest and dialogue system of our game very easily. For example, a good character in the party might pick up a quest, such as locating a holy religious artifact, which would never even be offered to an evil character. But an evil character in the party could then complete the quest by destroying the artifact in the name of evil. Should the party be penalized or rewarded for that act? Should the good character be penalized and the evil one rewarded? Since the player can add and remove characters from the party during play, it would be an easy task to swap in and out characters of different alignments as needed, to maximize quest experience and take advantage of dialogue options.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I've kind of wondered why a lot of the previous generation of D&D games even bothered with alignment given how inconsequential it was or handled poorly. It's nice to see some more thought on the subject.
<br>
<br>
Spotted this at <A href="http://www.homelanfed.com">HomeLAN Fed</a>.
<br>

 

[HanoverF]

This Alignment dictated content is my only serious misgiving about ToEE. It just sounds like a good deal of your path is laid out once you pick your partys' alignment, and thats no fun. Extra quest avalibility and dialog options because of alignment is one thing, limiting quests and dialog because of alignment (that you picked at the begining of the game) sounds... stinky.

It sounds like it takes rather then adding to the game, and I dont buy that 'so people can't cheat and get too many options' explanation.

But its part of the whole D&D thing so I guess faithfully adapted is better then ignored.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, you have two good choices when making a D&D game dealing with alignment. One is to make a sliding scale alignment system, which slides on the good/evil axis as well as the lawful/chaotic axis. Setting up good/evil outcomes with values that affect them based on the situation is fairly rough, but factor in lawful/chaotic and it becomes a mess.

The other is to enforce the static D&D alignment, which is more like PnP.

 

[DrattedTin]

I happen to like the set up!

Less unintentional fudging (the game judging what you're doing as evil when you think it's good, et cetera) and so on.

I don't see the downside, unless you just like to switch around a ton.

 

[GreenNight]

I like it. In fact I would like the game to ask me what kind of person to play, then it would place dialogs acording to it. Because sometimes the game (arcanum ranting) just decides that you are evil and places evil options of speech (or just arrogant?, not sure). Sometimes he things you are good and do not have the option to insult them.

It would be nice to select some character traits: arrogance, stubborness, evil, good facade/evil inside, evil facade/good inside,... Later the game can bring you options depending on these traits.

Well,... but not in D&D of course, this is an aligment game and you select the aligment and it defines how you expect to act with your character, so the previous decision is half done. I like how its done, you say how you are expecting to play and the game can react accordingly, I'm all for it.

 

[Spazmo]

To be fair, it's simply illogical from a role-playing point of view to start changing alignments all the time. Some complain that alignment forces you into a certain set of actions, but don't forget that you can choose your alignment. Simply put, if you decide to be chaotic evil, you have no buisness doing any good quests. Why? You're chaotic evil.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Simply put, if you decide to be chaotic evil, you have no buisness doing any good quests. Why? You're chaotic evil.

Nothing is one dimensional. What if a chaotic evil character looks at a perfectly good quest from an evil perspective and sees opportunities for personal gains and such?

Btw, I am arguying only because I'm bored and, well, I like to argue . I like the idea of focusing gameplay around alignments: different starting locations, alignment-specific quests, and different endings. Throw in a well done turn-based combat and I'm going to be replaying ToEE for a very long time :D

 

[Spazmo]

Ah, well, that's a design issue. Ostensibly, it's a matter of giving the player a given goal and then letting him accomplish that goal however he wants to do it. Whether ToEE does this or simply has totally different quests based on alignment is unknown, and is not related to how good the alignment system is anyways. But what I'm saying that it makes absolutely no sense for Krugdar the Ravager, barbarian warlord, to go up a tree and save the kitty. If such options are availible for evil characters, there should be some kind of penalty attached to them.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If such options are availible for evil characters, there should be some kind of penalty attached to them.

Absolutely! A letter should be send to the Chaotic Evil Organization and their memberships suspended untill they take an anger ant-management program

 

[Spazmo]

Well, yeah. Some in-game consequences are good. But maybe a more immediate XP penalty to drive the point home.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's a tricky issue and the main reason why abstract concepts like good and evil should not be in a good RPG, but since it's a D&D and alignment is part of the package, I think that the problem of characters acting out of alignment should be dealt with before not after.

Technically a person with a lost kitty should not approach a mean looking crazy-eyed guy covered in dried blood and ask for help, so I think what Troika is doing (adjusting quest dispenser according to alignments) is a good way to handle it.

If, however, you prefer to give a freedom of choice but to punish for making a wrong one, a good way to handle it would be making evil NPCs suspicious of an evil character who's acting strange and withhold some beneficial info or a quest which would force the evil character to work really hard to get his goals accomplished. Then he would think twice before volunteering for some community service.

 

[Jed]

If, however, you prefer to give a freedom of choice but to punish for making a wrong one, a good way to handle it would be making evil NPCs suspicious of an evil character who's acting strange and withhold some beneficial info or a quest which would force the evil character to work really hard to get his goals accomplished.

Now that's a really good suggestion. Throw that one into "RPG Codex CRPG Ruleset" thread...