Question about Charname alignment
Stickan
Member Posts: 136
During several other discussion going on here on the forum me and many others have surfaced thoughts about more substantial effects of alignment and reputation concerning party NPCs etc. Many people have been sceptical to these changes, some positive.
What I would like to know though is what effects alignment has at all currently? (Apart from setting your starting reputation between 8-12, which is rather meaningless since you can so easily get higher/lower rep without any caps. And how would people even know your alignment before you've left the shelter of Candlekeep anyway?)
Before I get sidetracked again... There currently appear to be no penalties for playing outside your alignment (unless you are a paladin or ranger and go on a killing spree of innocents), nor any rewards for playing inside the boundries of your alignment. I'm not sure what should be done about that but as it is the "big" alignment choice which very much defines your character has very little bark, and even less bite.
Thoughts/answers?
What I would like to know though is what effects alignment has at all currently? (Apart from setting your starting reputation between 8-12, which is rather meaningless since you can so easily get higher/lower rep without any caps. And how would people even know your alignment before you've left the shelter of Candlekeep anyway?)
Before I get sidetracked again... There currently appear to be no penalties for playing outside your alignment (unless you are a paladin or ranger and go on a killing spree of innocents), nor any rewards for playing inside the boundries of your alignment. I'm not sure what should be done about that but as it is the "big" alignment choice which very much defines your character has very little bark, and even less bite.
Thoughts/answers?
1
Comments
As a sidenote, i have always thought the aligment in d&d was very artificial. I think the chnages in aligment is one of the few changes i like in 4 ed.
But for "divine" oriented characters it can be quite the big deal. As a DM I've always payed attention to if players are playing clerics and paladins well. I think their powers are wholly contingent on serving their deity.
BG has little application for this apart from reputation on paladins and rangers. Ideally, something would track clerics too. But for now, I'm content to be left on my own recognizance.
Even a lawful good character can go on a murderous rampage without alignment playing a role. The canon story assumes you are of some good alignment I believe but there's really no constraints in game.
i'm thinking If I am an CN charname it would be nice if i could give little bit CN answers and question to people...
also i think we should get bonus and penelty in recruiting followers that are very far from charnames aligment......
the same thing can be said about npc reactions maybe a low cha charname gets penelty on Reaction Adjustment when talking to a npc that are opposite aligment of him/her
Reaction Adjustment in cha is as now:
Charisma Npc Reaction
3 -8
4 -7
5 -6
6 -5
7 -4
8 -2
9 -1
10 0
11 0
12 0
13 +1
14 +2
15 +3
16 +4
17 +4
18 +5
19 +8
20 +9
21 +10
22 +11
23 +12
24 +13
25 +14
In BG1 they make aligment options more open, but the plot helps you define it : you are either trying to prevent the war, profit from it, or take advantage of it.
Should there be penalties for roleplaying against your alignment? I would say just a few , such as npc's complaining and certain people refusing to talk or help ya.
This is my concern with alignment affecting things, a computer cannot detect intent. In pnp a player and DM can discuss these matters and a player can attempt to explain why he thinks his lawful good character would kill a helpless old lady, or why his chaotic evil character would help her cross the street. This is the problem with video games making moral choices, they are too black and white. Choice a= good Choice b= evil.
It'd certainly be possible to introduce some discrimination been Lawful and Chaotic, at least in dialogue options. However, it's obvious (from discussions in other threads) that the majority of people even in this forum have no clear (let alone agreed) understanding of what Lawful and Chaotic mean, and participants in this forum are probably much more clued-up than the average player, so I suspect that any game-mechanic which used Lawful and Chaotic would merely cause complete confusion to most players.
Thus it's probably a wise choice that Overhaul (and Bioware before them) have ignored Lawful and Chaotic. Maybe a mod could attempt to introduce a real difference, but the modder would have to be prepared for storms of complaint from players who don't have the same (or any) understanding of what Lawful and Chaotic mean.
A paladin is forced to pick Lawful good, but doesn't have to act either lawful nor good so what is so important about it then? To me the whole alignment thing for Charname at least seems superfluous. It feels like a really important choice the first time you make a character but you can play the exact same way if you play lawful good or chaotic evil with no consequence. It bothered me to no ends when I realised over ten years ago.
I think it would be fun if alignment had some sort of impact on your game. It wouldn't have to be anything major, just make you feel that the choice actually affected something. Right now it's about as decisive as your name. I realise a complete rework of the system is impossible, and that it will probably stay exactly the same. I just feel like alignment, along with some other variables (for example Charisma, feel free to not read my rant in the thread about party size) got forgotten in the game or were purposefully ignored to utilize time on more important implementation and design.
In the case of evil characters I'd like to see the alignment system separated from your reputation as I can't really fathom why your average neutral evil character would mind if he or she had an excellent reputation amongst the plebs - more leeway to get away with dodgy and immoral acts behind the scenes. Berlusconi anyone? Chaotic nuts like Xzar however I could understand perhaps leaving if the public perceived you as being too excellent or if you committed certain lawful good actions. Sarevok however would be laughing all the way to the bank at the prospect of the masses adoring him. What is needed are triggers for certain evil characters to abandon you if you perform deeds of unexplainable goodness with no obvious personal benefits (and then maybe fail a charisma check to lie your way out of it).
Good alignment NPC's leaving if your reputation falls low is fine though as that would rankle them.
Nice ideas for adding meaningful effects based on NPC reactions to reputation, etc. I like those.
In general, I mostly just use the alignment stuff as a roleplaying aid. I don't see any evidence that the designers intended for it to be much more than that.
But as others have mentioned (esp. @Gallowglass), it would be nice if the dialogue options offered more options geared towards Law / Chaos dynamics once in a while, or even options geared towards variations of my CHARNAME's chosen alignment.
Perhaps even a 9-studded dialogue wheel, with appropriate options for each hub? That would be interesting.
The game made an effort to enforce it, but given all the possible interactions between all the different characters, it's impossible to flag everything via alignment. That's where role playing the character you created matters.
Hero <----------> Villain (current Rep, fueled by great deeds and forced on you by plot)
Charity <----------> Greed (accepting or demanding payment)
Forgiveness <----------> Vindication (seeking justice or retribution)
Peaceful <-----------> Violent (choosing to fight when other methods are available)
Each NPC would have some axis that they care about. Neutral NPCs might care more about the Hero/Villain axis (and be happy with just being famous), while Good or Evil NPCs might care about the other axes more. For example, Kagain would be happy if Greed were favored (and he'll leave if Charity gets too high).
Another example: Monty likes violence, and so does Ajantis. Both of them can co-exist in a Violent party. Where they disagree is in Charity / Greed and Forgiveness / Vindication: if you stray too far into one extreme or the other, you'll lose one of them.
Like it! You creating your own RPG? Looking for another artist?
Also, you've mentioned Ajantis and Monty co-existing because both appreciate a fight - now that would be more of a flaw than an improvement , since a paladin would never approve Monty's bloodthirst.