23 replies to this topic

[Caswallon]

Scrap alignment.
It has its place in a general "What is roleplaying, and how do I do it?" introductory section in a guide for players, where it is but one of several possible pseudo-psychological systems. It has absolutely no place in game mechanics.

I play PnP regularly, with a system without alignment, and it works just as well. There is absolutely no need to cram a good-evil/lawful-chaotic scale into the rules. How to play the character, should be up to the player, within the restrictions of his role. If the character has been trained as a thief, but gets "reformed" and behaves just, heroic and never lies or steals - why not? After some time, he'll not really qualify as a rogue anymore, of course, and will develop other skills. (That counts as changing class in DnD-speak, I guess.)
I do not think that players need the crutch of an alignment in the background. It may help an individual player to orientate the actions of his character on a certain alignment in the sense of a simplified pattern of human behaviour, but I don't see the need to force that particular system onto each and every player.

That said, I don't like character classes that much either, but that's another thing.

Reputation with various power groups and factions is another issue, and imho wholly independent from alignment. How people look at you depends on what they know or think about you (and the factions/groups you belong to), not some abstract categories of behaviour.

My 2 ?-cent, or so.

[Feanor]

I wonder if there should not be some dialog/actions/quest restrictions according to your alignment. After all, what's the idea of choosing a lawful evil alignment, but playing as a good character ? In BG2, the alignment has no effect on the plot. Just to give one sample : you can do the ransom quest (the woman in the Bridge District which is kidnapped and you have the option of releasing her or receive the ransom yourself). In this case, a lawful good character should have only the first option (free her).

[Caswallon]

And again - it should be up to the player to keep to his role.
I don't like it at all when a game/DM forces a particular way of doing things on me.
A LG character should have all the options - but he should choose only the one freeing her, and that is the player's duty, who chose that certain role. If not, there might be repercussions in some way or the other, preferably in how people react to him, but I don't like to force the player to stay in his role.

[Alandrea]

You can choose which class your character prefers and you gain a bonus to any skills you select from that class, but it doesnt in any way restrict you. You also have 5 'main' skills and 5 'minor' skills, and you select these also (you gain a bonus to your main skills, and a lesser bonus to minor skills, and both lots will increase faster then other skills.

Now that could be cool.

when you kill the king you get the feat "king killer". something like fallout has done. so you can then create reactions based on these facts. also you see a nice list when looking at your char sheet.

I would likely enjoy that, sounds interesting.

For example, if a character confesses to a crime he did not commit in order to save a young child, his reputation will fall, but he will move towards a good alignment.

I like that idea too.




I've never really felt that alignment contributed that much to the actual gameplay, reputation on the other hand? I usually try to have a good reputation to get good reactions and prices and things but I think that there?s even more ?evilness? in that, I mean by doing the good acts for the reputation and not for the sake of being good.

I think what I?m saying is ?yay for evil people who want to lie to the world and make people think they?re good? but I?m not sure anymore? I?m really quite tired.