Skip to content

[Request] Torment-like alignment system

AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,533
I believe everyone on these boards is acquainted with Planescape: Torment and the way alignment is handled there in. For those who aren't, in Planescape: Torment you start out as True Neutral and your alignment is adjusted dynamically throughout the game depending on your deeds, actions, and the way you relate to other people. This is quite possibly the best, most realistic and correct way to handle alignment in a D&D game. It also makes evil alignments more viable/playable.

My request is therefore for BG:EE to handle alignment the way Planscape: Torment does. Currently, you start out with the alignment you select at character creation and you're stuck with it for the whole game regardless of your behavior. You could be a Lawful Good jerk, or a well-mannered Chaotic Evil guy. It makes no sense. It is fine for players to be able to pick an alignment at character creation, but then their actions should live up to it or it be changed. This way, alignment would cease to be (almost) completely irrelevant in game.

Also, the alignment chosen at character creation shouldn't influence your Reputation score, because:

- As it is now, one could pick Lawful Good for the Reputation bonus then roleplay any other alignment of their choice. It would be better if they could freely select the desired alignment from the very start with no effects on Reputation, and work on both as they play.
- As it would be if my request was implemented, one could pick Lawful Good for the Reputation bonus then have their alignment re-adjusted to the desired one through roleplaying.

In both cases, that would be bad roleplaying. Not an especially dire issue, mind you, but I don't see it making much sense so it seems logical to fix it.

Comments

  • WardWard Member Posts: 1,305
    There are no mechanisms in Baldur's Gate which adjust your alignment, I think. It'd be a lot of work, but I like the idea.

    I don't know how being a paladin would be able to work though.
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,533
    @Ward

    Being a Paladin in BG already makes it mandatory for you to behave at least in a Good way. Failure to do so results in you becoming a Fallen Paladin and losing all benefits the Paladin class has to offer over a simple Fighter. I don't see it becoming significantly more complicated with a Torment-like alignment system.
  • WardWard Member Posts: 1,305
    So you're saying we scrap alignment completely, you start off True Neutral (and a paladin) and as long as you're good you get to keep your 2H. If not you become fallen.
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    Eh, I think lore wise Paladin's should always start off as Lawful Good (though one thing about DnD rules that I never understood is why there can't be Neutral and Evil versions of Paladins as a base class).

    In Planescape Torment it makes sense for you to start off as True Neutral since your character is basically a blank slate. In BG that isn't entirely true since you start off with a class already.

    Perhaps your alignment could change over the course of the game, but I don't think that really meshes well with some classes (Paladins, Monks, Rangers, Druids and perhaps even Clerics). Paladins can become fallen, but what happens to Rangers and Druids that deviate from their ethos?
  • trinittrinit Member Posts: 705
    Ah, Planescape torment... when will we get a game like this again? :/

    I like how the alignment is handled in planescape torment, and personally wouldn't mind seeing it implemented into BG, but not as the "behind the scenes" variable, but as the active stat (like reputation).

    this is basically the same discussion as the "enhanced reputation" and virtue mod. developers already talked about reputation system revision, and i hope alignment will be a direct result of players actions, not a fixed stat that can be ridiculously out of place in the endgame.

    but i don't think you should start as a true neutral. you should still have a choice to be whatever starting alignment you desire and change in alignment is later determined by players actions. that way, your character can start as a LG paladin and may later become fallen, if he deals with the problems in unlawful/evil fashion. that is the point in my opinion, you start as something and later evolve, you are not a blank sheet.

    like i mentioned in previous discussion, points for evil and good are mostly the main point of conversation, but lawful and chaotic is quite lacking. the biggest problem is neutral decisions (on both scales). they do not exist, or are treated like some middle ground between good and evil or even worse, as indecisiveness. neutral alignments should be a rightful and independent alignment, not simply a matter of balance.

    also, what happens to the monk that becomes chaotic? or lawful barbarian? do all these characters become "fallen" (simply have their special abilities removed)?
    it would be nice to see paladin become anti-paladin, with new powers, etc...

    in the end it is questionable how much can be done within existing content, without it becoming editing the original content, because like i said, i think some alignment options are vastly underrepresented. i don't know if it is simply a matter of coding the variable ... :/
  • WardWard Member Posts: 1,305
    Maybe you should be able to choose your alignment, but have a Neverwinter Nights type of moral system. Make actions change your alignment and reputation so you can become a new person, or stay true to yourself.
  • trinittrinit Member Posts: 705
    oh, if i was not clear enough, i like and support the idea. i would love see the developers adress those problem, not ignore it because it requires workarounds etc.

    btw, what do you think about evil rangers? they are possible in 3E rules. would enabling them in BG be a heresy? or?
  • WardWard Member Posts: 1,305
    I still don't understand why rangers have to be inherently good. A lot of the descriptions for alignments are dumb. A chaotic evil person is described as impossible to get on with an comparable with demons or one sided thieves. Why can't somebody be evil, and unlawful, and still be intelligent, charismatic, tolerable and easy to get on with?
  • TanthalasTanthalas Member Posts: 6,738
    I think that neutral and evil Paladins should exist. This is even more obvious for Rangers and I'm glad that was fixed in later editions of DnD.

    Druids were even worse, just look at Jaheira and Faldorn, neiter of them ever looked True Neutral to me, they should have been Neutral Good and Evil. I actually wished they just changed their natural alignment in BGEE even if that isn't allowed in 2E.
  • trinittrinit Member Posts: 705
    @Tanthalas and @Ward: i agree, maybe this should be a new discussion...
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,533
    I don't think one should start out as True Neutral in BG:EE either, as I wrote in the first post. I'd just like alignment to change according to CHARNAME's actions, as that strikes me as the way to handle alignment that makes the most sense. It is true that for some classes it may require awkward workarounds because of sometimes awkward (and sometimes appropriate) alignment restrictions, but something could and should be devised to address this. For example, if you belong to a class that has strict alignment restrictions, then you lose all prerogaritives / special abilities related to that class the moment you cease being of the required alignment, and you gain them back if you gain it back.

    Becoming a "Fallen" version of your class makes sense for some, but not for all (a Fallen Barbarian would be kinda weird). Then again, roleplaying is also a factor: if you have a Monk character concept in mind, that concept is likely Lawful. Therefore, you'd play it as Lawful. If you want to be "original" and make your Monk become Chaotic is your right, and your "problem". In P&P you can potentially create all sorts of apparently (or even actually) contradictory characters, so why shouldn't this be possible in a computer game?

  • Zymran86Zymran86 Member Posts: 137
    edited June 2012
    Just leave the alignment as it is. You roleplay after your alignment/Character preference, theres alot of dialogues etc, if you want to be a charismatic evil person you can sometimes choose the good Dialogue option if it aint too "Goodie Goodie" as Monty puts it, the only thing in the game that needs fixing at the moment is the reputation system, Evil characters who dont want to have good reputation? thats quite unheard of... aswell as its really hard to play evil in the game.
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,533
    Reputation definitely needs a workaround, but the devs have already said they'll be looking into that post-ship so I didn't bother making the request. My problem with a fixed alignment and roleplaying is that you can be a Lawful Good jerk or a Chaotic Evil gentleman - that doesn't really make sense to me.
  • Zymran86Zymran86 Member Posts: 137
    edited June 2012
    Roleplay the way your characters aligment is as i mentioned above, aswell if im playing an evil character for example with high intelligence score, id like to have the option to choose the good side of something, becuse i can see (My character can see) thats the way i get most out of something, and after ive chosen that a few times in diffrent dialogues etc i really dont want to get my roleplay character to suddenly turn chaotic neutral.
    Id also like to make an example of an ingame event, if my character that i roleplay isnt interested in, lets say money, then Prism and Greywolf Quest for example, my character dont accept those money, first of all becuse he finds it petty to consort to thievery and secondly (or the other way around) he isnt interested in money, -and becuse i choose that option, i dont think i should get a point in good alignment etc
  • AndreaColomboAndreaColombo Member Posts: 5,533
    @Zymran86

    I can see your point.
Sign In or Register to comment.