Minor Alignment Modifications

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ZanathKariashi

I wouldn't mind a complete overhaul of the system.

First off, make things much stricter for paladin and rangers. A PC paladin that allows an evil npc to join the party falls immediately (that is a Major violation of their code, and all paladin can detect evil, so there's no excuse for it). Also, a paladin PC who's alignment shifts away from Lawful good immediately falls (as per PnP) as does a Ranger who ceases to be of a good alignment. Certain particularly evil acts also cause immediate falling, even if it's not enough to drop them from their proper alignment category.

Paladin NPCs will not join a party with any evil party members, and will immediately leave if the PC's alignment becomes evil, or if the PC attempts to recruit evil npcs they'll stop the PC and reveal the recruited character is evil and give a choice to go through with it or not, at which point the evil character will leave as if kicked out or the paladin will at the player's choice, or takes certain particularly evil choices in quests (counts as if leaving due to low rep).

Separate the reputation system from how evil or good the party's actions are (allows evil parties to gain good publicity discounts without risking evil NPCs leaving). Rep only applies to how society view the party, not how the individual party members view it. Add a different counter that tracks how overall Selfless or Selfish their actions are, weighted for monetary gain or prestige to allow evil characters to be placated for goody-goody acts, if there is enough material gain or ego gratifying prestige involved.

Allow the PC's alignment to shift over time, based on choices in game. Only the PC's individual actions are monitored for general purposes (NPCs stealing stuff won't effect the PC's alignment, for instance, but breaking into to someone's home and ransacking the place themselves will), but all dialog based or quest resolutions are assumed to be by the PC's consent and do impact it. Non-paladin or ranger classes with alignment restrictions stop gaining xp if they become a restricted alignment, until they've returned to an allowed alignment, or dual-classed to a class that allows that alignment. Any abilities gained continue to function, they simply cannot progress further. Fallen Paladins and Rangers are considered Fighters for most purposes and have no required alignment.

Completing the Atonement quest in BG2 will set the paladin's alignment back to Lawful Good and restore their powers..but they can lose them again if they don't act accordingly (An option will be given to dismiss any Evil Npcs from the party at this time, if it is declined, they immediately fall again). Rangers are set to Neutral Good and have their abilities restored, but likewise can fall if they don't maintain a good alignment.

NPC's never change alignment, aside from those with the option to do so, but will leave if the party's overall direction or certain particularly extreme actions conflict with their personal alignment too much, without compensation. Imeon continues to be an exception to this rule, as she always has. (Big S can only be used in a paladin's party if he is made to swear an oath, otherwise it results in falling)

O_Bruce

One sentence: "Contractual Limitations!"
Thank you.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

LMTR14

BG needs a flexible alignment system like PS:T has. Actually I cant believe the modders havent done it by now!

This would of course go hand in hand with more neutral/evil and lawful/chaotic choices given to the pc throughout the game, something BG is drastically missing compared to PS:T and the Neverwinter Nights 1 games. Hell, Id write it myself if somebody coded it...

O_Bruce

About new NPCs, making Dorn somehow "redeem" himself would be a lame idea. We have a Sarevok already. It is possible thought and up to Overhaul.

Kurumi

Yes.. definitely.. alignment changes ftw!!! .. but also for CHARNAME!!!

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Anduin

No! If I was a Paladin, I would be trying to make my fellow companions more empathic to there fellow man, dwarf, elf etc... (Evil --> Good). If I was a thief they would see the benefit of liberating certain items (Lawful --> Chaotic). If I was a ranger or druid I would be banging on about Darwinian theory about only the strongest survives irrelevant to good or evil (--> Neutral). If I was a hamster I would not tolerate any talk about the cuteness of cats! (Cat person --> Dog person).

A move towards neutrality is not enough!

Madhax

ZelgadisGW said:

About new NPCs, making Dorn somehow "redeem" himself would be a lame idea. We have a Sarwvok already. It is possible thought and up to Overhaul.

Why not have him shift to neutral, like what Bhaaldog is suggesting?

Picture this: Dorn tires of arbitrarily committing evil acts on the whim of his demonic patron, and we get a nice epic-level encounter against the demon lord in ToB:EE. Upon murdering the demon, Dorn absorbs or otherwise gains his powers (so that we don't randomly de-power him, which would suck), and shifts to Chaotic Neutral. He's still a misanthropic asshole, but he doesn't go around murdering children for no reason. And if we want him to stay evil, there's no reason he can't after such an encounter.

Xzar

As always, I will only support this if its equal to both directions, i.e. good alignments can shift to neutral just as easily as evil ones. And given that majority of players and devs have a bias towards goodie-goodies, I'm sceptical on this topic. Phil Daigle did promise me on Reddit AMA a villain protagonist sometime in the future though...