Would you like an alignment change feature?

Nouser

Alignment change (maybe symilar to planescape) . Would involve both good/evil and lawful/chaotic.

Note that there is already a mod (virtue mod) that adds some of that:
http://www.pocketplane.net/mambo/index.php?option=content&task=blogcategory&id=107&Itemid=82/

Ward

Sure, just like Neverwinter Nights. If you do bad, you become bad. That sounds fair man.

GueulEclator

The problem is more about making alignment more consistent. You can't really play a jerk in these games.

You can't really play like an evil character, and most of the time, the only way to have a reward is to complete the quest like the quest giver asked you to.

For example, you can't really side with the bad guys, or even betray both parties and follow your interest. It happens very rarely.

Nouser

still, I think that in BG is more possible to be evil than in games like mass effect, dunno about dragon age though.

CrazedSlayer

Yes, however, Id also like to see alignment incorporated more meaningfully into how quests progress, the dialogue options I'm given and how people react to me. Weird how the biggest alignment-based feature is the animal that appears when you cast the familiar spell :S

GueulEclator

CrazedSlayer said:

Yes, however, Id also like to see alignment incorporated more meaningfully into how quests progress, the dialogue options I'm given and how people react to me. Weird how the biggest alignment-based feature is the animal that appears when you cast the familiar spell :S

Exactly.

Nouser

reaction dialogues to evil things do happen in bg1 tutu and vanilla bg2.

I think its possible to change the dialogues of the main character. at least partially.

kamuizin

Of course, that's evolution. Every actual game released already has this feature, to reject it would be stupid.

Kerozevok

This feature request a lot of work... for not much, because only the reputation is taken into account (bad dreams, high prices, loss of power (paladin/ranger), reaction..).

O_Bruce

As much as I would want it, Virtue mod is not implemented into game. So no alligment change, at least for now.

Akerhon

A Paladin that can become Blackguard? Oh Yes!

The_New_Romance

Absolutely yes, yeah. Makes for much better stories.

kamuizin

Kerozevok said:

This feature request a lot of work... for not much, because only the reputation is taken into account (bad dreams, high prices, loss of power (paladin/ranger), reaction..).

So what? This isn't charity, i paid for the game. I'm not asking them to implement the feature now, but a future patch/DLC can do the trick.

Edit:
Ps: In fact alignment and reputation are not linked, and this implement could finally proof that. Most ppl here make evil paries with 18 reputation to benefit from merchant discounts.

Anduin

There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead,
And when she was good,
She was very very good, (Lawful Good at least!)
But when she was bad she was horrid. (Chaotic Evil definately!)

Would definately make people think twice about there actions... Blackguards becoming good would lose powers... Paladins becoming evil etc...

Akerhon

Anduin said:

There was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead,
And when she was good,
She was very very good, (Lawful Good at least!)
But when she was bad she was horrid. (Chaotic Evil definately!)

Would definately make people think twice about there actions... Blackguards becoming good would lose powers... Paladins becoming evil etc...

I know that is AD&D but Blackguard is a new class ...
However,
something similar to the Paladin who becomes an evil Blackguard, like in Neverwinter Nights would be nice. imho

Grieg

@Akerhon
Maybe anti-paladin, there are in BG2 some giths who have such label. I remember that they were attacking the party in docks.

kamuizin

If you have in your backpack the blade of Gith, the first time in chapter 6 that you enter Athkatla, a Wild Mage Gith will appear demanding the return of the blade. If you refuse you fight him and among his allies there's an anti-paladin.

Xavioria

As @CrazedSlayer said, people should react differently to you based on your alignment if. It's being changed. The only issue then is what to do with reputation. I could see an evil PC with high reputation and vice versa. I think that if alignment is similar to torment, then reputation would become useless, except for merchant prices, half of which we bypass anyways with pickpocketers

CrazedSlayer

Perhaps a rethinking of what reputation would mean based on different alignments? On the moral/immoral spectrum, a chaotic good with a 20 reputation would mean something different to a neutral good with a reputation of 20. For the first, it would be he/she is a badass who will go above the law to cut you down if you do something evil (moral save for human bandits) while the other would be a by-the-book sort that will possibly tolerate the presence of evil unless they are legally-bound otherwise.
If you change the name "reputation" to "notoriety", it becomes more what you are specifically known for, based on your morals. Hell, I could imagine merchants lowering their price or guards refusing to attack a lawful evil with a huge notoriety because they're intimidated of them.

kamuizin

@Xavioria, in fact reputation should rule how ppl react to you, while alignment should allow some dialogue options and lock others, as alignment should rule your reaction to society, and reputation should rule society reaction to you, or at least the first impression of society reaction to you.

I even suggested an reputation/alignment/status variant in an old post that i made:

http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/9964/#Comment_9964

Don't know if it's the best suggestion i did, but it's a start to make this triangle work at least (rep/alig/stats).

CrazedSlayer

You seem to reward consistency based on alignment, which I like But did you consider alignment to be static or changeable based on key decisions you make throughout the game?

Xavioria

I see your point @kamuizin. I do believe that there should be your own personal reactions based on what you picked, however I could see that if that were the case, then alignment would have to be static, and unchangable, not that that's a bad thing. I am, however confused as to how anyone could possibly have a high reputation if all they're allowed to do or say, is a result of their evil alignment, same goes for the vice versa of good aligned people wanting a low reputation.

Unless if you're thinking of making things based on two different scales like they did in torment, where there was good vs evil and law vs chaos.

kamuizin

@CrazedSlayer, Static alignments are original content of Baldur's Gate unfortunally, otherwise i would work with an malleable alignment system . Isn't a bad system but need more work to keep coherence, only that.

Pretty much like you post @Xavioria, as we're locked to static alignment by original content rules (i think), i thought in this 3 based reaction system. In fact evil isn't equal bad reputation, it's most near a Law x Chaos base as you said, but that would be a too restricted view.

An Lawful Evil character would give neeb's head to the inspetor in the council building for example, and would happly kill the fallen paladins, while he didn't act by the goodness of his heart, but for greed, he get a high reputation with those acts.

An chaotic good character for example, in the meet with the paladin on the southwest part of Baldur's Gate city, the one that attack any evil aligned party member, would answer with violence if that paladin attacks one of the evil party members, for example.

Some acts of inconsequence, for example a mage that don't respect the cowled wizards and battle them on the open street (raise the hand who never did this XD), and finsh inflicting some colateral damage during the fight, he isn't necessary evil, but surelly will be hated by the people.

But in the end it's just my view of things, it's a raw view and need a lot of polishment, but it's a start to bring some coherence to the game.

Xavioria

Well even more than that though is the fact that reputation in this game is so linear, that you have to stop and think what it truly is.

For instance: You save a nobleman from a violent fighter, so he is in debted to you. For argument's sake, let's say you accept the reward only of a job well done and your "reputation" goes up. Later down the line you find out that the nobleman you saved is horrible to his underlings.

This comes to the question, who does your reputation go up and down with? Yes, the higher class likes you more, but the lower classes resent you for saving his life.

I really feel like reputation is a bit flawed, but at the same time, from a pragmatic point of view, you can't have three reputation sets, because that becomes too complicated for the simian player (Edwin reference (; ).

I honestly don't know what my point is anymore, but I the entire system is a bit screwy and I'm tired...

RedGuard

I wouldn't mind. You can change the odd NPC's alignment when they've had a change of heart, so I don't see why not when you do. Plus it makes the roleplaying better if the game plays along too.

Nouser

the function of alignment would be concerning characters class and roleplaying options (for example:
dialogues).

function of reputation is the way society sees you. that is related to store prices and some npc reactions. thats why low reputation brings mercenaries and guards to hunt the character.

i dont see how a torment style of alignment would conflict with reputation.

Kerozevok

@kamuizin I agree with you, but this feature request a lot of changes on the *original content* (need to edit most of the dialogues and many scripts) and as you know... they can't.

kamuizin

They can add if they don't change, while the options of the original content still exist, they have free reign to make the additions. Restrict some options to a base requeriment don't remove that option, just make new rules for it use.

However i understand that maybe the devs simply don't want to risk this, it's a possibility too. Let's wait and see, cos it's a shame that some mistakes from the past to persist because of a bad agreement of copyrights.

bill_zagoudis

while the idea is good on paper the fact is that whenever there is a point system in the good/evil,lawfull/chaotic axis every neutral character ends up being lawful or chaotic good.

why? because points from meaningless acts that every sane and non sadistic person would perform stack up. and if let's say i want to stay neutral i have to do what? toss a random murder in my game to compensate for freeing slaves(a thing that only evil characters would tolerate),reputation is already frustrating enough for keeping one or two evil characters in my neutral leaders party,and i already hate it that it takes 1 murder to keep it all right...

after all the concept is flawd because if let's say we play in a world where the authorities are just and take care of the people,guess what: all neutral and good characters will end up being lawful good after some time...but that's not the case they do not go against the law because of zero motivation...

on the other hand if the goverment is a cruel dictatorship all neutral and good characters will end up chaotic...while they only disobey the law because it causes nothing but misery...

likewise an evil character may join a just/good cause for personal gain,even if he gets hired as a mercenary a dozen times for just causes while he makes himeself a fortune that doesn't mean he became good...he'll still betray the cause if better oportunities arise he just has no reason so far...(evil=selfish not psycopath after all-most cases)

i mean taking care of a friend or freeing a slave is an act any good/neutral character would do,even if he repeats it 1000 times he's still neutral,while in game he becomes good...the diference is that good means taking personal risks and loosing oportunities/wealth in order to help others while neutral helps as long as it's not too difficult or if he's too close to the person asking


overall it will only encourage players to do things that are not like them in order to keep their prefered aligment,simply of points stacking

Jalily

@Xavioria The Fallout series handled it by giving your character a separate reputation with each faction/town. It was intuitive, simple (believe it or not), and worked really well. I don't think it would ever be implemented in BG though, except through mods. In your example, I'd base the characters' reactions on how you handle their questline and use general reputation for neutral characters like merchants or the aforementioned nobles/peasants before you've done anything with them.

@bill_zagoudis I agree, some games run into this problem by giving you good points for killing criminals or monsters...who are hostile to you anyway, so who wouldn't kill them? Defending yourself and doing favors with the expectation of reward doesn't mean you're a better person.

That's one thing I like about Planescape: Torment: if you resolve the quest in a self-sacrificing manner (turning down rewards or giving something up when the alternative is what anyone else would do and NOT a blatantly evil/stupid non-choice), you get good points; you don't get them just for completing the quest. (I think...I've only checked a few quests since this information doesn't directly show up in the game.)

Generally, you also had to ask for a reward in order to receive one, and if you did you didn't get any good points because your intent was clearly profit. Much better than games that make random people reward you without asking so they don't know the player's motivation and universally assume it's good. -_- The only kink in this otherwise great system is that the developers thought they had to "make up" for the lack of reward by giving you more experience, and experience is way more valuable than some easily obtainable cash.

elminster

I said no but to be honest I really don't care either way. I'd prefer to see them fix that darn "neutral evil" issue with the hell choices.