25 replies to this topic

[Sir Kalthorine]

Something that has occurred to me while answering some queries in the Workroom forum is the apparently imperfect or "fudged" way in which SoA/ToB deals with ?neutral? characters, and NPCs in particular (thinking about mainly original Bioware NPCs here).

I know that part of this is due to the fact that with some issues (e.g. unprovoked killing of innocent peasants) it is very hard to ?sit on the fence?, but if Neutrality is about balance then surely a TRUE true neutral character would see some circumstances in which innocent deaths would be necessary, and due to their alignment would have no qualms against taking regrettable but necessary action. For example, what about the prevention of numerous deaths by starvation in an overcrowded slum by ?culling? excess population to ensure there are enough resources to go round, assuming all other non-violent options (e.g. relocation) had been explored? Somehow, despite her being listed as ?True Neutral?, I could not see Jaheira condoning that.

The ?imperfect? coding of neutrality in SoA/ToB exhibits itself in a number of ways that, while I can see reasons for them in terms of gameplay (e.g. more people play good characters than evil), I find it hard to reconcile in roleplay terms. For example:

• In my opinion (and I know I am not the only one to think this way), Jaheira does not behave according to the tenets of her alignment (True Neutral). Bioware simply cheated here ? they left her as True Neutral because she is a Druid, but then wrote all her dialogue as if she is good. She might complain about lack of ?balance? when your reputation gets high, and refer to it in her dialogues, but to me it is simply a smokescreen. Unfortunately, treating neutrally aligned NPCs as being ?good in all but name? is not only limited to Jaheira.
  .
  
• The same could be said to be true of Jan Jansen, and to a lesser extent Cernd or Yoshimo.
  .
  
• Reactions to reputation are another bone of contention ? surely a ?true? neutral character would have as adverse a reaction to extremes of GOOD (rep 20) as they do to extremes of EVIL (rep 1). But in-game a neutral character will leave if party reputation drops too low? and yet does not do the same if reputation gets too high. I know that this makes sense in terms of gameplay, but it is another example of how neutral NPCs seem to be coded to ?prefer? good over evil.

As usual, of course, I have a Chrysta agenda here. She will be true neutral, and therefore I wanted to gauge everyone?s opinions concerning what you see as the proper behaviour for a neutrally aligned NPC. So please, post your ideas and opinions here ? and if you can illustrate them with examples of how you think neutral characters would behave in specific situations as compared to good and evil ones, so much the better.

I am sure people have some pretty strong views about this, so here?s hoping we can spark some lively debate on the issue

Edited by Sir Kalthorine, 24 March 2005 - 04:58 AM.

[Cantrip]

True-Neutral Characters usually prefer Good over Evil, since they prefer to live in a society of Good rather than Evil, its stated in the description of TN.

Plus, I think that, rather than make neutral characters good, Bioware made the Good (and Evil) guys more neutral: for instance, not all good characters abject to killing Drizzt or to taking the Noblewoman hostage, which they should - being Good and all.
And I can't recall any so called "Evil act" being done by any Evil fella.

Neutral is about "Enlightened Self Interest", which is why I like it, it doesn't mean you need to be cruel or charitable, just that you are - occasionaly.
Most people in RL are some kind of Neutral, and while they may state differntly on a quiz, how they act in RL is what counts, not only what they intend originally, since intentions can (and do) change.

About Jaheira, I do not see her as "Good", per-se, since she disapproves of charity and of helping others without a gain.
She has something negative to say on almost any occasion, but you don't see her normally object to your actions, no matter how callous.
Same can be said about Haer'dalis, Yoshimo, Jan or Cernd.

Nalia, Keldorn and Aerie are Good, not to an extreme, but still good.
I wouldn't call Anoman Good, but rather a real LN.
Imoen is really CN, and Edwin a crancy LN.
Korgan is also more like CN than CE.
Viconia doesn't seem too Evil, more akin to TN with a (slight) tendency towards Evil
Mazzy is a LN as well, not being too nice or helpful to people.

Edited by Cantrip, 24 March 2005 - 05:42 AM.

[Hendryk]

There are also two distinct types of Neutrals. The philosophical Neutral (aka, Jaheira) sees Neutrality as a positive reconciliation of all conflict; as something good (small 'g') to be upheld for its own sake. The indifferent Neutral simply doesn't care, in that abstract, about Law or Chaos or even Good or Evil. It's simply the default alignment that's left over after any positive commitment has been removed.

As a newly-minted, sentient creature, Chrysta would probably fall into the latter camp of Neutrality.

[Sir Kalthorine]

There are also two distinct types of Neutrals.  The philosophical Neutral (aka, Jaheira) sees Neutrality as a positive reconciliation of all conflict; as something good (small 'g') to be upheld for its own sake.  The indifferent Neutral simply doesn't care, in that abstract, about Law or Chaos or even Good or Evil.  It's simply the default alignment that's left over after any positive commitment has been removed. 

That difference between "philosophical" and "default" neutral alignments has always been something that bothered me. To me, alignment denotes a set of beliefs concerning morals and ethics (however strongly held), and it seems to belittle devotees of True Neutrality to have the majority of indifferent bystanders painted by the game with the same ethical brush. Far better, I think, to have the vast unconcerned uncommitted majority labelled as "no alignment".

I can see why the game labels "bland" locals as Neutral for playability purposes, but it is a shame that that denegrates the followers of True Neutrality by way of an unfortunate but unavoidable association.

[Andyr]

I'd concur with Hendryk; I see TN as being either a passive or an active alignment. Though the former could also perhaps be labelled no alignment at all...

[Archmage Silver]

I'd concur with Hendryk; I see TN as being either a passive or an active alignment. Though the former could also perhaps be labelled no alignment at all...

I second that. I wonder if it's possible to play a fully lawful good PC in BGs... no. I don't think that's possible.

[Hendryk]

I wonder if it's possible to play a fully lawful good PC in BGs... no. I don't think that's possible.

Well, if by "fully lawful good" you mean a character who never adjusts his/her alignment behavior in the slightest to accomodate to actual game-world situations, then no. Thing is, though, unless the campaign/game is pure hack'n'slash, I don't think it's possible to RP a fully lawful good character by that definition. Not unless the LG character were made to sit out for almost all the RPing.

[AnnabelleRose]

A true LG character would never deal with the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi.

As far as I can tell, setting your alignment in BG does nothing for you other then your initial reputation. As long as you make the right choices in the Hell Trials.

[Hendryk]

A true LG character would never deal with the Shadow Thieves or Bodhi.

Bodhi? No. But if the need were great enough and there were literally no other way to meet that need, a deal with Aran might be permissible. Not Aran's petty, make-work errands perhaps but payment for services and attacking Bodhi's lair could probably be managed - with dispensation beforehand, atonement afterward and lots of LG-type angst in between.

Actually, I would see the slaughter of that drow-hunting party outside of Ust Natha as a bigger alignment problem for a LG PC than anything Aran Linvail involves the party in.

[fallen_demon]

While I see a lawful good pc being deeply saddened about killing the drow-hunting party, they don't plan to do so and are merely defending themselves, so I don't think it constitutes an alignment problem.

[Hendryk]

While I see a lawful good pc being deeply saddened about killing the drow-hunting party, they don't plan to do so and are merely defending themselves, so I don't think it constitutes an alignment problem.

I guess. It would've nice if Bioware had included at least the appearance of an RPing option to talk one's way past it. As portrayed, just smack down another random encounter in the UD without a word, it'd be problem.

I suppose Bioware would say they didn't include anything like that because it would've just been unavailing chatter and they had word-count limits to observe and deadlines to meet. Still about the suckiest thing in the game from a LG perspective though.

[Sir Kalthorine]

And, of course, as a mod-writer you have to take a pragmatic view.

• Write your mod with strict adherence to alignment stereotyping and roleplaying, and you alienate the many people who want to play a "free and easy" game without continually being forced to play a game a certain way just due to in-game alignment considerations.
  .
  
• On the other hand, make it so that you can float through the mod and choose whatever path they like without fear of consequence or reprisals, and you quite rightly annoy the many players who enjoy "proper" roleplaying.

So it is a challenge, therefore, to reach an acceptable compromise when dealing with alignment, morals and ethics. Which is one of the reasons why I wanted to check how people considered alignment before I got too far into writing and coding Chrysta's encounters and dialogue.

[Adder]

I don't think the alignment has to be equal to a character's behavior. An evil character should be allowed to act civil, simply because is it in his/her best interest.
For example I don't see Viconia insulting every person she meets. Her intention is to survive at the surface, so why should she complicate things?

Much the same goes for Korgan. CE IMO doesn't automatically equal stark raving mad. If Korgan really should slay some people on the street, the should be a random-encounter-dialog first, much as in the Edwina/Salvanas happening.

[Lord Ernie]

While I agree that Bioware cheated a bit on Jaheira's alignment, I think the rest of them are fairly well chosen. I'm not gonna debate every single one of them, but here's some:

Jan: Chaotic Neutral. As it says in the manual, Chaotic Neutral characters are the lunatics and individualists. Calling Jan perfectly sane is like saying the same about Minsc. Jan doesn't show much interest for people he doesn't know or care about (his behaviour in his own quest can be perfectly considered Neutral), nor does he make many moral objections throughout the game.

Imoen: Neutral Good. While she has some very chaotic traits, Imoen also displays the stereotype NG behaviour: wanting to help people. She cares about others, and helps strangers as easily as friends. I've always found her a doubtful case, though. Either CG or NG.

As for Chrysta, I had a question: will the PC's directions and influence also influence her alignment? If she really is, as you say, a blank sheet to start with (aka TN), wouldn't it be possible to nudge her in a certain way towards either evil or good?

Edited by Lord Ernie, 05 April 2005 - 05:05 AM.

[Togashi Renshi]

That would most certainly be interesting...
:turnip:

Edited by Togashi Renshi, 05 April 2005 - 05:33 AM.

[Sir Kalthorine]

As for Chrysta, I had a question: will the PC's directions and influence also influence her alignment? If she really is, as you say, a blank sheet to start with (aka TN), wouldn't it be possible to nudge her in a certain way towards either evil or good?

Now that would be telling...

[Conker]

Hey, Sir K. Haven't seen you in a while. Sorry about getting the Imoen Romance forums closed and all.
Anyway, I think Bioware made a lot of mistakes in the alignment department, personally. I work from the assumption that Good is helping others when it is of no benefit to yourself. Neutral is doing anything which benefits yourself. Evil is any action intended to harm others that is of no benefit to yourself. As you can see, most creatures would be neutral - Especially creatures like mindless Shadows, and Wraiths.
Working on that basis, then, let's look at joinable NPCs.
The Evil NPCs: Korgan, Viconia, and Edwin.
Korgan, though exhibiting a more than healthy bloodlust, never suggests anything vicious/evil for no reason. Viconia, though having a 'colourful' past, similarly doesn't give many examples of causing others harm for no reason (apart from mentioning that she killed a number of her husbands "for sport", though, this is not sufficiently elaborated on). Edwin - His most "evil" trait would appear to be getting annoyed with everyone around him so much that he wants to blow them all up. Let's be honest, who isn't like this?
Hell, look at Yoshimo. He betrays you all to Irenicus. Yes, he's under a Geas. But, even at the cost of his own life, he could have warned the party. COULD have. He knew he'd die anyway. And yet he was put as True Neutral. Hmm. Little regard for his comrades.
Anyway if, upon rescuing any children from the slaver ship, any of these NPCs were to go "Sod it, let's just kill the children", then yes, I'd class them as evil. But they don't. My suggestions for refinements, therefore, are

Korgan - Chaotic Neutral. Mazzy talks. Don't have him in long enough to write anything more.

Viconia - Lawful Neutral (Hard one to place - She's used to the law and structure of drow society, and used to following it, as the consequences of not doing so were dire - as she later found out. On the other hand, she has little regard for surface laws/structure, as shown in her candid account of whoring herself to Amn, and other dialogues. So, it's a bit of a toss-up between Lawful Neutral and Chaotic Neutral for Viconia.)

Edwin - True Neutral. He definitely holds the weak in contempt, and has no motivation to help others when he will not benefit from it. And he has what, at times, could be described as a truly individual sense of humour. But I think it would have to reach the point of him saying "I am bored. Entertain me by killing Garren Windspear and giving his land to Firkraag" before I'd class him as evil. Hell, he doesn't even try sell out the party to Irenicus at any point. The odds are clearly in Jonny Boy's favour, so I view this as quite a redeeming feature.

Oh, yeah, Sarevok. Er... hmm. Maybe, CE? Maybe?

Neutral NPCs:
Yoshimo: Hmm. I believe that even a self-serving Neutral NPC would have some loyalty to their companions. Typically. But this isn't required. However... *Shrug* It's a tough call. Either TN, as he is, or NE. Though if he were NE, it would give the game away a bit, hehe.

Haer'Dalis: Now this one I agree with. He's a free-spirit, no love for authority or law, and motivated by his own whims. CN.

Jan Jansen: See above. Exactly the same as Haer'Dalis. Although Jan isn't a flaming bi. CN.

Cernd: Pisses me off too much to have him in the party for more than 5 minutes, so I'm not qualified to judge.

Jaheira: As people have said above... She's ALWAYS bitching at you to do good. Her alignment just doesn't fit her.

Good NPCs:
Anomen (If made a Paladin) and Keldorn - Well... assuming they believe the teachings of their church to be right... I suppose they should be put under "Good". *Grumbles* Damn annoying Paladins. So yeah, Lawful good for both. Otherwise, the alignments for Anomen are fine as they are.

Imoen: Wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG. She should be Chaotic Neutral. She gets the soft spot for an underdog every once in a while, but as evidenced by A) The fact that she sticks with you no matter how evil you are and B) Her dialogue (and lack of it), she doesn't care THAT much. CN

Mazzy: I agree with this one. Though her lawfulness is slightly overdone, at times.

Aerie: Dear God. Well, if she could ever stop whining about her wings long enough to actually come up with some actions/an alignment, I suppose it'd be Neutral Good. She's too much of a tool to be anything but good, as she depends entirely upon her religion for the feeble strength of will she does have. And neutral because she doesn't really make references about her love for law/society very often.
OH NOES I HAVE LOST MY WINGS!

Valygar: What the hell? He's a surly prat. No different from Anomen once he's failed his test, actually. Especially when he starts fights with Viconia. Methinks he was only put as NG in order to be viable as a ranger. Anyway, Valygar should be LN, I'd say. Maybe, maybe CN.

Minsc: NEUTRAL good? NEUTRAL? He's goddamn insane! He should be Chaotic Good, obviously. CG

Nalia: Urgh. Neutral Good is appropriate, I suppose. Though it's debatable whether she is at all good. She's possibly just trying to 'help the commoners' because she despises her family and peers, and doesn't want to turn out like them, and yet doesn't actually care about helping the commoners. As shown by her ToB "archmage" talks... Christ, I just psycho-analysed a BG2 NPC. Jesus. Let's just call it NG for now, then. Until she goes power-mad and becomes a lich.

There. I think that's all of em. Sorry for writing reams and reams.

[Lord Ernie]

Minsc: NEUTRAL good? NEUTRAL? He's goddamn insane! He should be Chaotic Good, obviously. CG

Minsc is Chaotic good. They're not that stupid as to make him NG.

And Imoen: I still think you're wrong. She doesn't have any strong moral tendencies (not every good character has to do that, you know), but she cares for other people and wants to help them out (even so for strangers). That said, she has Chaotic tendencies, so I think she should either be CG or NG.

Edwin: LE fits him, I think. He thinks himself superior, judges people on their birth, race, social class and group, and has a tendency to be nasty to most of them. That's LE by the book.

Edited by Lord Ernie, 12 April 2005 - 03:42 PM.

[Conker]

Minsc: NEUTRAL good? NEUTRAL? He's goddamn insane! He should be Chaotic Good, obviously. CG

Minsc is Chaotic good. They're not that stupid as to make him NG.

Ooh, Lord Ernie. Nice seeing you as well. I don't know about Minsc - I haven't been able to load up BG today, but in making the above post I got my information from http://www.planetbal...ncounters/npcs/ , which places him as Neutral Good. Must be a mistake.
As for Imoen... well... we'll have to agree to disagree. Much as you know I love Imoen, I think it kind of devalues (to the extent that it has any value) the "Good" alignment that Mazzy and Minsc, who are always whining about not doing enough good deeds, share it with Imoen, who seems to have a more "Huh? Well, yeah, sure we can do some good if the opportunity arises, why not. As long as it's fun." kind of approach.

Edwin: LE fits him, I think. He thinks himself superior, judges people on their birth, race, social class and group, and has a tendency to be nasty to most of them. That's LE by the book.

That description sounds a lot like Nalia. Although I suppose she's less nasty, more unintentionally patronising. Either way though, nastiness and evilness are different things, I'd say.
And it fits Nalia's aunt to a tee. The lawful part, I'm undecided on... to some apart, all the mentioned characters (since I quoted) seem to consider themselves "above the law".

[Hendryk]

In BG1, Edwin wants you to murder Dynaheir as the price of his joining the party. In BG2 he orders you to murder the mage, Rayic Gethras, as a part of the MaeVar quest that is required before he will join. An NPC who suborns the assassination of rival mages for two games running ain't NG.